Skip to content

My First Hand Experience of Amos Yee’s Asylum Hearing


The Honorable Samuel Cole, immigration Judge.


The Honourable Judge’s thirteen page statement amounts to a damning indictment not just of Singapore’s detention and later prosecution and incarceration of a 16 year old but also accuses the government of general maltreatment of the teenager. Above all it shows that the Lee family and their cronies, whilst completely free of checks and accountability inside our borders, will be brought to book on the international stage if they continue to run Singapore like a dynastic and feudal family empire, headed by a strong man with knuckle dusters and a hatchet.



A typical commenter on social Media said the final  paragraph reads like trolling.




However, before we go any further I want to warn any Singaporeans out there who fancy a fresh start in America that abusing a religious text is NOT a short and sure path to successful asylum in the U.S. It does seem that our government wants to convince Singaporeans that the US judgement will lead to a flood of dedicated criminals who think they can get asylum in the US by burning the Koran or committing a sex act with the Bible. But this is because our Government wants to convince us that Amos’s prosecution was all about the need to protect Singapore’s fragile ethnic and religious balance and prevent our country being plunged into sectarian wars and civil strife
To be successful Amos Yee’s bid for asylum would have to prove that:
A. He suffered  persecution because of his beliefs in this specific case because of his political opinion and that the government is either involved in the persecution of or unable to control the conduct of private actors.
There were a couple of surprising aspects to the hearing.
1. Cross examination
The first surprise for me and I think also for Yee’s lawyers was that the US Department of Homeland Security (DHS) opposed Amos Yee’s asylum case. In many ways Yee’s case was a classic one of persecution and there seemed to be no clear cut reason as to why it was so robustly opposed. I cannot  speak for the other witnesses but I was aggressively cross-examined. Luckily Amos had a dedicated, very capable and pro bono law firm behind him who were well prepared, even if I was a little taken aback. Here is Sandra Grossman s letter of thanks to me after the hearing.
2. Freedom of Speech
From the comments I have seen so far combined with our Government’s statement it seems that there is a major misunderstanding amongst Singaporeans. I can assure you that the hearing did not revolve solely around  freedom of speech issues particularly the argument that Singapore needs less freedom of speech to maintain a delicate balance of religious diversity. There were no great Charlie Hebdo debates, personal freedom of speech coming head to head with rights to freedom of religion and that sort of thing.  With regards to the hate speech aspect the judge heard compelling evidence that  hate speech was acceptable selectively.  For example pro PAP or other individuals were not punished for racially or religiously motivated hate speech as egregious as Amos Yee’s.
In my written statement I had already said:
“What was the nature of Amos Yee’s crime? Was he a dangerous criminal or a violent thug  or was there an imminent fear that he was radicalised and would commit a terrorist act? No. His “crime” was to load a video onto his blog that criticised and mocked the recently deceased former strongman of Singapore Lee Kuan Yew.”
As the Judge says in his ruling;
Page 6 D.
The Judge also said that:
Page 10
“both the witnesses testified similarly about the nature of the public attention to the video and their testimony went unrebutted by DHS”
It  is surprising but true that the DHS attorney did not cross examine me over this maybe because the written evidence on public record is overwhelming.
My Personal Motivation
A lot of journalists have asked me why I chose to fly out to Chicago. The answer is I didn’t choose to. I had been supporting Amos Yee from before he first appeared in court here. I had also written an open statement  to support Amos after which  his lawyers Grossman LLC contacted me and asked if they could submit my testimony as evidence.  During some later prepping sessions by video link the lawyer let slip that it would make a huge difference symbolically if nothing else were I to attend to testify in person. By then I felt I had an obligation to follow through so I scrambled around for a flight and left,  ill prepared as it turned out for snow in Chicago!
 The  judgement can be found here:
My original statement here:
 I will continue with other aspects of the hearing, such as the Judge’s understanding of our sedition laws and other tools of repression and the question of obscenity and grizzly bears,  in future blog posts.
Meanwhile, ‘I hope Singaporeans will see how democratic counties truly view our authoritarian system without the rose-tinted spectacles that MHA requires us to wear. We should stop feeling so pleased and proud that we have sold our rights so cheaply to the Lee family and their cronies, for living standards that are not ‘much better than those in Kuala Lumpur or Eastern Europe.


  1. It all began with that “LKY was awful” video posted at sixteen. We wonder, don’t we, how it had been possible for serious, mature adults, professionals in law appointed to high places to have such serious regard for those adolescent rants and antics to have considered the whole thing to be worthy of coming within the ambit of their serious professional responsibility to prosecute. Surely, the usual response would have been to shake our heads and smile, the older amongst us feeling paternalistic and wishing Amos’ mother and teachers would teach him towards better educated use of his acting and language abilities. Unless, of course, they had had no choice, because either instructed or feeling instructed. But then, worse, our puzzlement would be directed further upwards to concern those even more mature and serious, and appointed to such positions of power as to be able to make those below them to feel constrained to act contrary to their normal humane nature. How could such persons be so childish, matching Amos’?


  2. Well done, mate. A politician with correct morals and good sense. However, reading the overwhelming posts still condemning Amos in social media, I think the farce is still strong in Singapore.


  3. Amos had indeed gone overboard, is not wrong to differ in ideology especially in politics. But all things should have been done peacefully and tactfully. To outrightly, criticize and slur vulgarity is denifely wrong. Be it against a person or religion.

    But then again, he is just a child. And he should be dealt with as a minor. Now, that he had gain asylum in America, may he be more discerning and peaceable. May the good Lord bless him and have mercy on him.

    Liked by 2 people

    • You have some good points and as you say Amos was a minor. He may have been morally wrong but he wasn’t a legal criminal. I do believe it is our duty to call out politicians and other public figures receiving my tax dollar. They don’t hold back when criticising me or slurring and defaming me. But I appreciate you for taking such a tolerant approach and for wishing him the best despite disagreeing with his vernacular.

      Liked by 1 person

  4. Not all democratic nations are equal in management & culture, period. In Rome, just do what the Romans do, ok ? The same in S’pore, period, whether u like it or not. Amos made his choice to leave S’pore & stay in USA, so be it & good riddance of bad rubbish.


    • What kind of logic is that? How can a country improve if we are always satisfied with doing the same things over and over and over again? It is the duty of the people to stand up and say when something is wrong, not to shut up and sit down. People like you are the reason Singapore will always remian behind.

      Liked by 1 person

      • >M Hunter : What logic are u talking about ? S’pore democracy has been & is till decided by the majority voters since 1959, period. If the minority voters want to make any change for the sake of changing, they must seek permisssion from the majority voters, period. Democracy is for, of & by the majority citizens, period. So, we have the facts, logic & reason, period.


  5. Well done Kenneth! I am happy that a US judge has ruled that the Singapore government is a farce, and mentioned explicitly in his ruling that the PAP government redraws electoral lines to win elections, while bankrupting political opponents, and controlling all main stream media so as to brainwash the populace.

    Liked by 1 person

      • Like they say, objectivity is greatest when farthest from the field. Singaporeans are too close to the action to even realize what is happening to them, and the PAP is very crafty in its messaging to the people and how they go about implementing their policies.

        Those who are object have likely migrated away from Singapore, or is a wise judge like The Honourable Samuel Cole.

        Kenneth, I and many others totally appreciate what you have accomplished. You have continued on when so many have given up on Singapore. You are a true leader who is selfless and who finds joy in helping others. Singapore is lucky to have you. Thank you!


Leave a Reply


You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo


Twitter picture


Facebook photo


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: