Hundreds marched to Singapore embassy

The Bangkok Post

Bangkok (dpa) - Hundreds of Thai protestors marched on the Singapore embassy Friday renewing calls for a boycott of goods and services, after the city-state's purchase of the former business empire of Thai premier Thaksin Shinawatra.

More than 600 protestors marched from Lumpini Park to the embassy compound waving banners reading "Close Relations With Singapore," Don't Buy Singapore Products, Don't Use Singapore Services and Banks,"and "Corrupt Thaksin Get Out, Don't Support Corrupt Temasek."

The protestors passed a letter to the embassy demanding the Singapore government end its 15-year agreement with Thailand to rent military bases in the kingdom and calling on Singaporeans to help their cause.

"We, on behalf of the Thai people, would like to call upon the people of Singapore to assist us by scrutinizing the business conduct of Temasek Holding and the rental of military bases in Thailand, as well as applying pressure on the Singapore Government to adhere strictly to transparency and good governance and to abstain from interfering in other countries' internal affairs by cancelling the purchase of Shin Corporation's shares and removing its military bases from Thailand," the letter said.

On January 23 Thaksin's family sold its 49 per cent stake in Shin Corp. - a holding company with investments in Thailand's mobile phone service, the national satellite network, a TV station, an Internet service and a no-frills airline - to Temasek Holding, an investment arm of the Singapore government.

The 73.3-billion-baht (1.9-billion-dollar) sale has outraged many Thais because it was tax free and amounted to selling off sensitive sectors to a foreign government.

The sale ignited mass protests against Thaksin that have spilled over into anger at Singapore. Last week about 1,000 anti-Thaksin demonstrators marched on the embassy to demand the Singapore government rescind the purchase.

Embassy officials told the protesters that the Singapore government has no say over Temasek transactions even though the holding company is wholly government-owned.

Temasek has acquired additional shares in Shin Corp. via a public tender and now holds 96 per cent of the corporate conglomerate.

The protestors gave Singapore until Friday to reconsider their demands, before they would renew calls for a boycott on Singapore goods and services.

Protests leaders claimed earlier Friday that their boycott would lead to at least 3 million subscriber cancellations of the Advanced Info Service (AIS), the mobile phone service owned by Shin Corp.

AIS is Thailand's largest hand phone service with more than 16 million users. Other services that have been targeted by the boycott include Singapore Airlines, the Singapore-owned UOB and DBS banks.

Singapore opposition leader sentenced to day in jail

The Star

SINGAPORE (Reuters) - A Singapore court sentenced an opposition leader to one day in jail and fined him S$6,000 ($3,700) on Friday for questioning the independence of the city-state's judiciary.

Failure to pay the fine by 5 p.m. on Friday would result in a one-week prison sentence, the High Court said.

Chee Soon Juan, secretary-general of the tiny Singapore Democratic Party, had criticised the judiciary during a February court hearing in which he was declared bankrupt following a defamation suit brought by two former prime ministers.

"I will not pay the fine," Chee told Reuters after being sentenced. Chee and his lawyer had been expecting a much more severe sentence of two to three months.

Chee was immediately arrested and transferred to the Queenstown Remand Prison.

He had been found guilty of contempt of court on Thursday. Singapore's attorney-general charged that he had "scandalised" the judiciary during his Feb. 10 bankruptcy petition when he "imputed that he and other opposition politicians had suffered grave injustice because the Singapore judiciary was not independent and compromised the law in order to gain favour with the government".

Chee, whose party has no seat in parliament, cannot run for election because, under Singapore law, bankrupts are banned from standing for Parliament. Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong is widely expected to call a general election in the next few months.

The U.S. Department of State, in a March 8 report on human rights practices in Singapore, criticised the city-state's judiciary and questioned its independence in defamation cases targeting opposition leaders, citing Chee's case as an example.

Singapore's leaders say the defamation suits are necessary to safeguard their reputations.

The High Court declared Chee bankrupt last month for failing to make libel damages payments to former prime ministers Lee Kuan Yew and Goh Chok Tong.

In January 2005, Chee lost a three-year legal fight against defamation suits brought by Lee and Goh, and was ordered to pay them S$500,000 ($306,000) for questioning the government's use of public funds.

Copyright © 2005 Reuters

High Court Hearing Debates Controversial Issues on what Constitutes Contempt of Court, Freedom of Speech and Political Persecution amongst others

Date of Hearing: 16th & 17th March 2006

The hearing of Attorney General versus Singapore Democratic Party (SDP) secretary general, Dr Chee Soon Juan for contempt of court over his bankruptcy statement which he submitted on 10th February opened in the High Court yesterday before Justice Lai Siu Chiu.

Starting slightly later than the scheduled 10 am, the hearing was first addressed by M Ravi, who also acts as counsel to Dr Chee. He explained that he was not the solicitor in record and that the submissions would be addressed in two sections, the first part from himself and the other by the defendant. He explained that he could not deliver the second part as it may impute him if he were to make those comments. AG Chambers, which was represented by Second Solicitor General Lee Seiu Kin did not have any problems with the representation after Justice Lai queried the prosecution.

M Ravi started off by distinguishing contempt in the face (or not) of the court and continued to argue that Dr Chee's conduct does not constitute contempt. He said that since the assistant registrar, who had the power to allege Dr Chee for contempt had not done so during the bankruptcy petition, henceforth, AG's pressing charges on Dr Chee constitutes as a procedural defect amongst other contentious issues.

Confusion broke out when Mr Lee said that Dr Chee had been served with an affadavit on 13 February of whom the latter had denied receiving. Nevertheless, the hearing adjourned for a 15 minutes break for Dr Chee and counsel to read the “lost” statements.

The prosecution argued that AG has pressed the charges according to order 52 Rules of The Court citing respondent for contempt. He argued subsequently that Singapore courts does not distinguish between contempt in the face (or not) of court after M Ravi cited precedent cases in Malaysia and Canada. He also argued that commonwealth countries have developed in different directions with regards to what constitutes contempt, hence inadmissible in Singapore's situation.

During the hearing, the prosecution read the bankruptcy statement (which was also posted on the Singapore Democratic party website - of which there was only minimal difference between the two, the latter containing the Canadian Oakwell case) that Dr Chee delivered during the bankruptcy petition and cited specific sections which Lee claimed were “scurrilous attacks” on the judiciary that “undermine the integrity and independence of the courts and the judiciary”. The prosecution further posited that Dr Chee was being “selective” in singling out Jeyaretnam and other Opposition and that his statements were “baseless” and “malicious”. He went on to refute the claims Dr Chee made in his bankruptcy statements.

After the lunch break, M Ravi touched on issues of freedom of speech; and that Dr Chee's statements were based on “fair comments” which henceforth does not constitute contempt of court. He argued that there is a need for a balance of approach. He said that the Singapore judiciary needs to be open to criticism in the balance of public interest. The current system in Singapore which lacked a parliamentary ombudsmen or an independent human rights commission effectively meant citizens had no channels of redress. He opined that there is a need to raise the threshold of judicial tolerance and adverse comments on judiciary independence.

Dr Chee who represented himself for his last part of the submission was stopped half-way when Justice Lai felt he was not focusing on rebutting the points made by Mr Lee. He was allowed to proceed after he argued that he was only trying to provide the background for making those comments. Besides narrating the personal reasons and observations, of which he believed he was politically persecuted by the PAP government, he also quoted from the United States Department 2005 Human Rights Record that commented on the Singapore judiciary.

Mr Lee further argued towards the last hour of the first hearing that it will be a sad state of affairs if Dr Chee is not held in contempt as Singapore needs to adopt to “local sensitivities”. He said that allowing precedents with Dr Chee case would slowly erode the basic foundations of the judiciary.

Justice Lai ended the session at 5 pm and remarked that Dr Chee and M Ravi had not addressed the issue of contempt. She has however reserved sentence and adjourned the case until the next morning.

The hearing which re-opened at 10 the next morning concluded within an hour.

Mr Lee, the prosecutor said that Dr Chee has not shown remorse but instead compounded his contempt for court during yesterday's trial and by giving an interview with Straits Times. He suggested that the nature and extent of Dr Chee's case warranted imprisonment though it will be a first for contempt of court in Singapore. He added that if Dr Chee thought being a politician would “immunize” and gave him “unlimited” freedom of speech, then he is wrong. He added that changes to the constitutional system should stay within the parliament and political arena, not the courts.

Besides summarizing yesterday's arguments, M Ravi added that Dr Chee should also be protected under the clause of Article 12, the Equation Clause of the Constitution which states that “All persons are equal before the law and entitled to the equal protection of the law”. He made this reference to the fact that Dr Chee was merely citing quotations from various bodies (not plucking out from thin air). He also used the analogy of foreigners being allowed to protest during the upcoming IMF-World Bank Protest whereas Singaporeans are denied this freedom to highlight Dr Chee's situation.

At the end of the hearing, the court sentenced Dr Chee to a day's jail and an additional jail term of seven days if he did not pay the fine of 6,000 Singapore dollars (3,700 US) by 5:00 pm (0900 GMT). He is also to pay for the AG costs tax on standard basis.

Justice Lai found Dr Chee in contempt of court as she found that Dr Chee has quoted from bodies which contains “half-truths, untruths and lies”. She also agreed with Mr Lee that it is one of the worst cases in “scandalising the courts” and that there were no mitigating circumstances for lenient sentences which M Ravi had earlier pleaded.

Dr Chee's contempt case has received international attention. Yeshua Moser-Puangsuwan, International Council Member of Nonviolence International, NGO in Consultative Status with UN ECOSOC, has filed a complaint to the Office of the United Nations Commission for Human Rights requesting “prompt intervention on his pending imprisonment for speaking his opinion”. A second complaint was sent to United Nations' Special Rapporteur of the Commission of Human Rights by 11 law-makers and activists, including Singapore's former solicitor general, Mr Francis Seow. The World Forum for Democratization in Asia (WFDA) of which Dr Chee, is a steering committee member of, has released a statement calling on the Singapore government to cease this act of political persecution.

Links:

1.AG Application on Dr Chee for contempt of court can be accessed from the SDP website, specifically at this link, http://www.singaporedemocrat.org/articlecontemptofcourt.html

2.Dr Chee's statements delivered during his bankruptcy petition can be accessed from the SDP website, specifically at this link, http://www.singaporedemocrat.org/articlecheebankruptcy.html

3.US Department, Singapore, Country Reports on Human Rights Practices - 2005, Released by the Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor, March 8, 2006, http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/hrrpt/2005/61626.htm

4.Complaint to UN human rights commission lodged on “contempt of court” case, 6 March 2006, by Non Violence International can be accessed from the SDP website, specifically at this link, http://www.singaporedemocrat.org/articlecontemptofcourt1.html

5.Second complaint sent to the UN on CSJ case, 10 Mar 06, can be accessed from the SDP website, specifically at this link, http://www.singaporedemocrat.org/articlecontemptofcourt3.html

6.WFDA Steering Committee statement, 15 March 2006, can be accessed from the Alliance for Reform & Democracy website specifically at this link, http://www.asiademocracy.org/content_view.php?section_id=1&content_id=675

Opposition leader braces himself for lengthy jail term

From The Star.

A SINGAPORE opposition leader fears he is facing a lengthy jail term after questioning the independence of the country's judiciary.

Chee Soon Juan, one of Singapore's few opposition figures, is to appear in court tomorrow to answer contempt of court allegations.

“I'm looking at jail time, prison time. How long, I don't know. It's really basically up to the judge,” said Chee, 43, secretary-general of the Singapore Democratic Party.

Chee said he had served three previous jail terms – a total of about two months – for speaking publicly without a permit, but he expected a more severe sentence this time.

The attorney-general filed a contempt of court action after a Feb 10 High Court hearing at which Chee was declared bankrupt. The bankruptcy order followed his failure to pay S$500,000 (RM1.14mil) in damages to the city's founding father Lee Kuan Yew and another former prime minister, Goh Chok Tong.

During those proceedings, Chee criticised the judiciary.

“The judiciary in Singapore is, sadly, not independent especially when it comes to dealing with opposition politicians,” he told the court.

The Law Society of Singapore, in comments reported by the local press, called Chee's allegations deeply detrimental to the rule of law. The Society was responding to Chee's public request for it to get involved in his contempt case.

“The Law Society rejects the allegations that you have made concerning the independence of the judiciary,” the Society's president was quoted as saying.

A member of the Singapore Democratic Party since 1992, Chee is a neuropsychologist with a doctorate from the University of Georgia in the United States. He said his practice lapsed because his political stance made it hard to receive referrals from medical professionals.

He is the author of four books about politics and another about parenting, and says he earns an income by selling them on the street. – AFP

SDP chief Chee found in contempt of court

Time is GMT + 8 hours
Posted: 16 March 2006 1753 hrs

By S Ramesh, Channel NewsAsia

SINGAPORE : Singapore Democratic Party leader Chee Soon Juan has been found guilty of contempt of court.

The ruling was made by Justice Lai Siu Chiu at the end of the hearing on Thursday.

She has deferred sentencing till Friday to give both Dr Chee and his lawyer another chance to reply to points raised by the Attorney General.

Both of them failed to do so today.

The Attorney General had taken action against Dr Chee after he made a statement about the independence of the Singapore judiciary on February 10 during a hearing on his bankruptcy before an assistant registrar.

Arguing the case for the Attorney General was Second Solicitor General Lee Seiu Kin.

He told the court Dr Chee had scandalised the entire Singapore judiciary by alleging that it was biased and unfair, and that it acted at the instance of the government or conspired with the government in cases involving opposition politicians.

Dr Chee had also insinuated that judges were controlled by the government and were liable to be removed from the Bench if they were perceived to be lenient towards opposition politicians.

During the hearing, the SDP leader, who was given an opportunity to make his statement, spent much of the time referring to defamation cases he and other opposition politicians had faced in the Singapore courts to substantiate his claim about the independence of the country's judiciary.

At one point, the Judge had to intervene, urging Dr Chee not to turn the court of law into an election rally.

Before adjourning for the day, Justice Lai said the hearing was a chance for Dr Chee to show cause as to why he should not be cited for contempt of court.

But she ruled there was no basis for her not to grant an order.

The court will sit again on Friday at 10am to allow Dr Chee and his lawyer to reply to points raised by the Second Solicitor General, before sentence is passed. - CNA /ct

Copyright © 2006 MCN International Pte Ltd

Singapore as regional suicide hub, or Suicidopolis!

Singapore now a suicide capital

Suicide is now a significant public health risk in Singapore, responsible for an average of one death every day, a senior government official said yesterday.

For every suicide, there are seven unsuccessful attempts and suicide is now among the top three causes of death among 15-to-35 year olds.

These disturbing findings were presented at the start of a three-day Asia-Pacific conference on suicide prevention.

They are the product of a study of Singapore's suicide figures by psychiatrist Chia Boon Hock, who has shed light not only on the main groups at risk of suicide but also the reasons why people choose to take their own lives. Mental and physical illnesses, it appears, are a significant factor.

Of the more than 1,700 people who killed themselves here between 2000 and 2004, up to seven in 10 were affected by mental illness in one form or another.

Yesterday's main speaker, Permanent Secretary (Health) Yong Ying-I, said local suicide rates were a significant concern.

And though, as elsewhere in the world, rates are highest among the elderly, youth suicide has become a particular problem.

"This is potential lost," she said, "the potential to contribute to their societies and economies ... to live full and meaningful lives."

She urged those who have direct contact with at-risk groups, such as bereaved elderly people or young people with relationship problems, to help identify them early.

Experts agree suicides are often the result of an interaction of factors, which need a "multi-pronged, integrated and comprehensive" approach. Moreover, causes of suicide vary depending on the person's age, gender, ethnic group, marital status and other social aspects.

Generally, young people take their lives because of relationship woes, such as unrequited love, or study stress.

Among adults, mental illness, or stress brought on by marital, financial or employment problems, are frequent "push factors".

But while financial woes do push some elderly people over the brink, many kill themselves because of health or family related issues.

"They fear being a burden to the family," said Chia.

Abused maids tell of their ordeals

From the BBC

Debate about the rights of foreign domestic workers in Singapore is continuing, after authorities rejected calls for maids to be given a mandatory day off each week.

About one in six families in Singapore employs a maid

A ministry official said that changing the law would inconvenience households but a recent report from Human Rights Watch showed maids could face overwork, small food rations and the denial of social contact.

The BBC's World Have Your Say programme spoke to two Filipina women who went to Singapore to become domestic workers, but suffered at the hands of their employers.

Esther and Thona (not their real names) escaped their abusers and found safety in a house for victims called Home. They spoke to us from the refuge.

ESTHER, 30

I worked every day. I didn't have a day off because it was stated in the contract that only after six months did I get my off day, and after that I would get one each month.

I worked in two houses but after five months I ran away because of insufficient food and insufficient sleep.

I worked every day from 6 o'clock in the morning to midnight but sometimes I had to get up in the middle of the night because I was also looking after a three-year-old child.

After dinner I had to wait for all the members of the family to finish their meal and then I would be allowed to eat, but only their leftovers.

They always scolded me for little things. They were very fussy and wanted everything to be perfect. I could not do the work because I didn't have enough food and I didn't have enough strength. Sometimes I received a scolding because I didn't have the strength to work.

I wanted to go out but they said they had to accompany me. I didn't have any freedom. They wouldn't let me talk to my Filipino colleagues. They didn't want me to make friends with them.

It felt like I was in a prison. I couldn't bear it any more and that's why I ran away.

Every time I looked for a new employer the pain was still there. I felt that this history was haunting me.

I am trying to move on. Here at Home I feel I have found a family but I still really miss my mother.

THONA, 26

My employer did not treat me well. If I did a simple mistake they shouted at me, telling me bad words and sometimes they beat me.

The first time was 20 May 2005, I cannot forget it. She slapped me because I forgot to cook the porridge on time.

The second time she beat me was 30 May 2005. She pushed me in my breasts and it is still very painful.

I was upset and I said to my employer 'Why do you beat me?' and my employer said 'Why should I not beat you?'.

My employer sent me back to my agency and then I ran away.

I ran away on 17 June 2005. I went to Home. I found Home and I have stayed here in the shelter for nine months already.

I really miss my family. I don't have money to go back. I would be happy if I could go back to the Philippines, if I could reach my own country.

Related:
Singapore rejects maids' day off

Bankrupt opposition leader now faces possible imprisonment

AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL
14 March 2006

SINGAPORE: Bankrupt opposition leader now faces possible imprisonment

Singapore’s public prosecutor (Attorney General) has filed contempt of court charges against former prisoner of conscience Dr Chee Soon Juan, Secretary-General of the Singapore Democratic Party (SDP) The SDP is a small political party with no representation in Parliament, where the ruling Peoples Action Party (PAP) holds 82 out of 84 seats.

Dr Chee was declared bankrupt by Singapore’s High Court on 10 February 2006 for failure to pay former prime ministers Lee Kuan Yew and Goh Chok Tong approximately US$300,000 in libel damages awarded against him for questioning in 2001 a US$10 billion loan Singapore offered to former President Suharto of Indonesia.

The contempt of court charge followed his refusal to answer the court's questions during the bankruptcy hearing. Instead, Dr Chee read a prepared statement, in which he said, "After much observation and having personally gone through the judicial process, I cannot but come to the conclusion that my case has not received the justice that it is entitled to; it has been crippled right from the beginning… I wish I could say my country’s judicial system is independent and fair. But I can’t because that would be a lie”.

Amnesty International is concerned about the continuing misuse of civil defamation suits and other laws for political purposes in Singapore to penalise and silence critics of the government. A pattern of politically motivated defamation suits in Singapore has served to maintain a climate of political intimidation and self-censorship which stifles freedom of expression, deters the expression of views alternative to those of the ruling PAP and dissuades many Singaporeans from exercising their right to full and free participation in public life.

The organization believes the application of civil defamation suits against government critics in Singapore have been disproportionate, and have undermined the requisite balance between the right to protection of reputation and the right to free speech

The impositions of a series of large damages awards to PAP leaders have driven prominent opposition members into bankruptcy. As bankrupts, they are automatically expelled from parliament or barred from standing in parliamentary elections.

The contempt charges against Dr Chee will be heard on 16 March 2006.

Background

The example of Dr Chee Soon Juan’s political career has deepened concerns that the Singaporean authorities use a variety of means to curb and deter the free expression of peaceful dissenting opinion – including the application of restrictive legislation and defamation suits. After Dr Chee ran unsuccessfully as an opposition party candidate in 1993, he was dismissed from his post in the Psychology Department of the National University of Singapore for alleged irregularities involving the use of his research funds. He was sued by the Department’s chair, a ruling PAP parliamentarian, for making allegedly defamatory remarks. Ultimately, the plaintiffs were awarded approximately US$300,000 in costs and damages.

In November 1995, Dr Chee was censured by Parliament for not contradicting criticisms or statements by fellow panellists at a forum in the United States, who allegedly criticized the judiciary in Singapore. In December 1996, Dr Chee and other party members were fined by Parliament for perjury, after they were accused of fabricating statistics in a parliamentary committee. In 1999 Dr Chee was imprisoned twice for making public speeches without a permit.

Lawyers in Singapore generally have been reluctant to represent opposition critics. When the defamation case brought by former Prime Ministers Lee Kuan Yew and Goh Chok Tong against him went to court in 2002, the judiciary refused to allow Chee to engage an overseas lawyer to act for him and he was therefore unrepresented.

Dr Chee is recognised internationally as a leading human rights campaigner. He is the 2003 recipient of the prestigious Defender of Democracy award by Parliamentarians for Global Action, chairs the Alliance for Reform and Democracy in Asia and is a member of the Directors for Democratic Leaders in Asia-Pacific.


Watch the documentary by Martyn See about Dr Chee Soon Juan online at:

TAKE ACTION

AI considers the use of defamation and other laws against government critics, such as Dr Chee, a restriction on peaceful political activity and an erosion of the right to free speech and expression.

1. Write a letter to the Singapore authorities (please fax if possible):

Express concern about the misuse of defamation suits and other laws against government critics, including Dr Chee Soon Juan, which contribute to a climate of self-censorship in Singapore and restrict the right of those Singaporeans with dissenting opinions to participate fully and freely in public life;

State that defamation suits against government critics have been disproportionate and have undermined the requisite balance between the right to protection of reputation and the right to free speech;


State that freedom of expression is a fundamental right guaranteed by the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the UN International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights;

Express concern that Dr Chee Soon Juan should have a legal representation; and

Call for an end to the misuse of defamation and other laws, which are being used to penalize political opponents.

To: His Excellency President S R Nathan Salutation:Your Excellency
Office of the President
Istana Annexe
Singapore 238823

Fax: +65 6738 4673
Telegrams: President S R Nathan, Singapore

copy to
Professor S Jayakumar Salutation: Dear Minister
Minister of Law
Ministry of Law
100 High Street
The Treasury #08-02
Singapore 179434

Fax: +65 6332 8842


2. Please write (fax if possible) a courteous letter to your country’s embassy in Singapore and copy to your Ministry of Foreign Affairs., enclosing a copy of your letter to the Singapore authorities and asking for a diplomatic initiative in this case.
Embassy contact information is available at: http://www.embassiesabroad.com/embassies-in/Singapore.cfm

For Canada: His Excellency Alan Virtue, High Commissioner, Canadian High Commission, 1 George Street #11 - 01, Singapore 049 145 Fax +65 6854-5930

cc The Honourable Peter MacKay, Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lester B Pearson Building, 125 Sussex Drive, Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0G2 Fax 613 996 3443)

Concern after Singapore broadcaster withdraws from Commonwealth Games

I would imagine that the decision to remove Singaporean state owned media from the Commonwealth Games coverage might have had something to do with the protesters who held red placards with the words "Shame Singapore Shame" as Father Norden went past. Of course there is no way anyone could have anticipated such demonstrations before-hand. Especially after the deal regarding Singapore Airlines' bid to compete on a transpacific route fell through and the protests regarding the death of Van in December 2005.

Is this round three or four? Ding-Ding!

The decision by Singapore's national broadcaster to pull out of its Commonwealth Games coverage has angered Games officials, who say the move will leave the exploits of the country's athletes unreported.

The Asia-Pacific Broadcasting Union has confirmed MediaCorp's decision, but has declined to comment on how it will affect Games coverage in Singapore.

Our reporter James Panichi says MediaCorp's decision not to send a crew to Melbourne to cover the Games is believed to be linked to concerns over the cost of buying broadcast rights.

With 63 athletes in competition, the Singapore contingent is its largest in Commonwealth Games history.

Its size reflects the country's strong performance at the 2002 Manchester Games, in which it picked up 13 medals, including its first-ever gold.

A team of seven MediaCorp production staff had be scheduled to fly to Melbourne last week, before it was told of the station's decision.

Officials at the Games say they are angered by the move, and that it will be a disappointment to local sports fans, including Singapore's large expatriate Commonwealth communities.

ABC Asia Pacific TV / Radio Australia


Related:
Baton protest 'disappointing': Madden

Peter Norden will carry the baton past the home and church of drug-smuggler Nguyen Tuong Van, who was executed last year by Singapore, which is also part of the Commonwealth.

The St Ignatius parish priest campaigned to save Van Nguyen from the noose, then conducted the young man's funeral.

Shame Singapore Shame

Protesters take part in Queen's baton relay

A Queen's baton relay runner has campaigned against the practice of capital punishment in Commonwealth countries.

Father Peter Norden was supported by a group of silent protesters as he ran through inner-city Melbourne this afternoon.

The protesters held red placards with the words "Shame Singapore Shame" as Father Norden went past.

Father Norden, who campaigned against Singapore's hanging of convicted drug trafficker Van Nyugen last year, has rejected criticism of the protest.

He says the Commonwealth Games baton relay is an appropriate place to champion his cause.

"Thirty-five of the 37 Commonwealth countries that have capital punishment still put a noose around people's necks," he said.

"We don't believe that in a civilised society that this practice should continue."

He has compared the protest to the Queen's campaign against AIDS and says the Commonwealth Games is an appropriate place to raise the issue.

But Commonwealth Games Minister Justin Madden says the baton relay is not the appropriate event to champion other causes.

"If anyone individual purports to use it for any other message that's disappointing," he said.

"But we still maintain that the baton is about the goodwill of the Commonwealth, the Queen's message and the opportunity for those unsung heroes to carry the baton."