Open letter to Singapore PM

Open letter to Singapore PM on WB-IMF meeting on Sept 19-20, 2006
By hegelchong
Created Feb 21 2006 - 08:34

During the SAPA (Strategic Action Planning for Advocacy) meeting in Bangkok (Feb. 3-4), many participants, from Singapore and other national, regional and international organizations expressed their concerns about possible restrictions and threats (including caning for protestors) being made by Singaporean authorities regarding civil society actions at the September meeting of World Bank and IMF in Singapore.

Participants decided that as the first response, concerned civil society groups should send a letter to the Singaporean authorities expressing our concerns.

Below is the open letter drafted by some participants. Should you want to endorse this open letter, please email your name and the name of your organization to ruki@forum-asia.org. Please circulate this also amongst your networks and encourage more civil society groups to join this campaign. Thank you.

8th February 2006

Mr Lee Hsien Loong
Prime Minister
Republic of Singapore

CC.
Ms. Louise Arbour, UN High Commissioner for Human Rights,
Ms. Hina Jilani, Special Representative of the (UN) Secretary General on Human Rights Defenders
Mr. Ambeyi Ligabo, Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom opinion and expression of the UN Commission on Human Rights
Mr. Manfred Nowak, Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment of the UN Commission on Human Rights
Mr. Paul Wolfowitz, President, World Bank
Mr. Rodrigo de Rato y Figaredo, Managing Director, IMF

Dear Mr. Lee Hsien Loong;

As a network of the national, regional and international civil society organisations, we the undersigned express our grave concerns about the impending restrictions and threats reportedly being made that will hamper meaningful civil society participation at the upcoming WB-IMF meeting in Singapore, 19-20 September 2006. These threats and restrictions will jeopardize civil society engagement with various inter-governmental bodies on strategic issues such as trade, aid, debt, sustainable development, human rights, peace and human security.

We understand that your government, as well as WB-IMF, are making some arrangements for actions by foreign NGOs, during the above meetings. In our experience such regulated processes tend to be selective, exclusive and provide very limited opportunities for the expression of civil society voices, particularly of marginalised groups who are directly affected by the deliberations and decisions of these meetings. Thus, we would like to highlight the importance of spontaneous and unrestricted civil society actions before, during and after the WB-IMF meeting.

We are also concerned by reports that only selected foreign organisations may be “allowed” to stage peaceful protests – waiving the rules that normally apply in Singapore – and that like-minded Singaporean organisations will not be allowed to do so. We emphasise that freedom of expression and freedom of assembly, particularly the right to organize and participate in peaceful protests are universal rights that should be enjoyed by all people, including Singaporean people and organisations.

We consider statements such as the one reportedly made by Mr Wong Kan Seng, Singapore Home Affairs Minister, that certain civil society actions may “attract severe punishment, including caning and imprisonment”, as veiled threats towards civil society.

The World Bank – IMF meeting in September is not a meeting that concerns only Singapore. Its deliberations and decisions will affect millions of people in hundreds of countries. Hence it will bring thousands of activists from all parts of the world to Singapore, and the eyes of the world will be on this country.

This will be an excellent opportunity for Singapore to display its respect and commitment to uphold universally-recognised human rights standards, particularly freedom of expression and freedom of assembly. Restrictions on peaceful civil society actions of any kind and threats of using cruel, inhumane and degrading punishments such as caning will only erode Singapore’s credibility in the eyes of global civil society.

We look forward to your response to our concerns.

Sincerely yours,

1. Anselmo Lee, Executive Director, FORUM-ASIA
2. Sinapan Samydorai, President, THINK CENTRE
3. Debbie Stothard, Coordinator, ALTSEAN-Burma
4. Lucia Victor Jayaseelan, Coordinator, Committee for Asian Women
5. Al Alegre, Executive Director, Foundation for Media Alternatives
6. Aileen Bacalso, Secretary-General, Asian Federation Against Disappearance
7. Fred Lubang, Regional Representative, Nonviolence International
8. Lidy Nacpil, International Coordinator, Jubilee South
9. Jenina Joy Chavez, Senior Associate, Focus on the Global South
10. Irene Xavier, Coordinator, TIE Asia
11. Hye-Woo Na, Coordinator, Leaders and Organizers of Community Organization in Asia
12. Zinithiya Ganespanchan, Coordinator, Women's Network for Peace and Freedom
13. Wilfred Dcosta, General Secretary, Indian Social Action Forum
14. Khalid Hayat, Balochistan Rural Development & Research Society
15. Sultana Kamal, Executive Director, AIN O SALISH KENDRA
16. Anis Hidayah, Migrant Care, Perhimpunan Indonesia
17. Agnes Khoo, Executive Director, Asian Regional Exchange for New Alternatives
18. Mohiuddin Ahmad, Regional Committee, Jubilee South/Asia-Pacific Movement on Debt and Development (APMDD)
19. Hemantha Withanage, Executive Director, NGO Forum on ADB
20. Ana Maria R. Nemenzo, Freedom from Debt Coalition
21. Steve Hellinger, President, The Development GAP
22. Bernadette T. Aquino, World Council of Churches Women and Globalization Program
23. Danielle Mahones, Executive Director, Center for Third World Organizing
24. Deus M. Kibamba, Gender Networking Programme
25. Andrew Mushi, Tanzania Association of Non Governmental Organisations
26. Mouafo Florent Noel, Centre for Promotion of Social and Economic Alternatives
27. Novita M. Tantri, Yayasan NADI
28. Rosemarie R. Trajano, Executive Director, Kanlungan Center Foundation
29. Nikki Reisch, Africa Program Manager, Bank Information Center
30. Dr. Mala Bhandari, Social and Development Research & Action Group NOIDA, India
31. Virgilio da Silva Guterres, President, Timor-Lorosa'e Journalists' Association (TLJA
32. John Mihevc, Chair, Halifax Initiative Coalition, Canada
33. Chris Wangkay, Coordinator for Debt Campaign, INFID (International NGO Forum on Indonesian Development)

Please contact Ruki Fernando, Coordinator of Human Rights Defenders Program of FORUM-ASIA (+66-4-0991538 / ruki@forum-asia.org) for further details and information.

Singapore Oppn. leader defends claims on judiciary

Singapore, March 3 (AP): Opposition politician Chee Soon Juan today defended his claims that Singapore's judiciary lacked independence, despite having been charged with contempt of court over the verbal attack.

Chee was charged after making the allegations at a February 10 court hearing at which he was declared bankrupt for failing to pay 500,000 Singapore dollars in damages to Singapore's two former prime ministers, Lee Kuan Yew and Goh Chok Tong, for defaming them in 2001.

Chee, Secretary-General of the Singapore Democratic Party, said he hoped his case would draw international attention on Singapore's courts, which he accuses of lacking independence.

"The Singapore judiciary must be the bulwark between the people and an authoritarian government," Chee said in a telephone interview. "I hope this will be able to focus attention on the judiciary. This has got to stop for the sake of Singapore."

In a court document posted on the opposition party's website, Singapore's attorney-general said Chee refused to answer the court's questions during the bankruptcy hearing.

The document said Chee instead read a statement which "imputed that the Singapore judiciary was biased and unfair, and that it acted at the instance of the government or conspired with the government in cases involving opposition politicians".

It said Chee had alleged that "the judiciary in Singapore is, sadly, not independent, especially when it comes to dealing with opposition politicians".

S'pore Should Not Issue Intimidating Statements - Shahrir

bernama.com

JOHOR BAHARU, March 3 (Bernama) -- The Singapore Government should not issue statements in the form of threats and intimidation towards Malaysia pertaining to Kuala Lumpur's decision to go ahead with its decision to build a half-bridge on the Malaysia side of the Johor Causeway.

Backbenchers' Club Chairman Datuk Shahrir Abdul Samad said Singapore's strong statement towards Malaysia showed the republic did not want a solution to bilateral problems.

"I and Johor Baharu residents are very disappointed with the way Singapore made statements like threatening and intimidating us when negotiations are ongoing.

"It is too much," he told reporters after presenting financial aid under the Johor Baharu Parliamentary Tekun Assistance Scheme to 19 recipients here Friday.

Shahrir said the statement in Parliament by Singapore Foreign Minister George Yeo did not reflect the goodwill of a country physically a close neighbour of Malaysia.

Yeo in the republic's parliament yesterday reiterated the country's stand that any move by Malaysia to demolish its part of the causeway and replace it with a half-bridge will bring about serious implications.

He said the matter had been explained to Kuala Lumpur through a third party note.

Yeo made the remark in response to the issue raised by members of parliament during the debate on the 2006 budget.

In January, Malaysia said it was going ahead with the plan to replace its side of the causeway with a crooked half-bridge, to be known as the "scenic bridge", after talks between the two countries had dragged on without any conclusion.

Shahrir, who is also Public Accounts Committee chairman, said although Yeo said negotiations would continue, he believed it would not reach any decision.

"It will not reach any way out because Singapore will continue to ask for something which we cannot give, namely sand and use of Johor airspace for its air force," said the Johor Baharu Member of Parliament.

He said the statement smack of a threat and intimidation by Singapore was a clear signal to the Malaysian Government that the republic would never agree with Kuala Lumpur's proposal to build a new bridge replacing the Johor Causeway.

"It's like pointing a gun at a man's head and forcing him to say yes," he added.

-- BERNAMA

Anti-Thaksin Anger Vented on Singapore

Marwaan Macan-Markar

BANGKOK , Mar 3 (IPS) - Singaporeans living in Thailand or visiting as tourists may have reason to feel nervous at the manner in which the affluent city-state is portrayed in the increasingly bitter political debate that has engulfed Bangkok.

Three anti-government demonstrations in February, which attracted thousands of largely middle-class Thais, offered glimpses of this hostile sentiment towards South-east Asia's richest country.

''Welcome to Thailand: The Second Branch of Singapore,'' read one of the lesser provocative banners held up by the demonstrators at one public rally. During these rallies, all a speaker has to do is castigate Singapore as a nation trying to buy its way into Thailand and the crowds roar in agreement.

Singapore as the scapegoat has its antecedents in a deal, made public late January, between Shin Corp., a telecommunications conglomerate founded by Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra and Temasek, the investment arm of the Singapore government.

Shin Corp. was sold to Temasek by the Shinawatra family, which ran the company after Thaksin shifted from being billionaire tycoon to running the government, in a deal which fetched 1.88 billion US dollars. No taxes were paid.

Almost immediately, a bout of Singapore-bashing began to manifest itself in sections of the Thai-language media. ''Our country has become a colony of Singapore,'' wrote a columnist in the Jan. 25 edition of 'Kom Chad Luk,' one of Thailand's leading local language dailies.

There even was a racial slant to the editorial. ''We should be aware of the danger from the black-haired and small-eyed foreignersà ''We won't have anything left over the next few years because those black-haired and small-eyed foreigners came to be involved in every single policy in Thailand.''

The warning that rising hostility against Thaksin could get transferred to Singapore manifested in February during protests by a group of activists in front of the Singapore embassy here, calling on Temasek to cancel the deal.

Thailand's English-language newspapers have drawn attention to ''xenophobia'' and the ''anti-foreigner'' sentiment in articles reflecting the mood of a city angry at the Shinawatra family for an act of betrayal. Shin Corp., say the critics, owned key sectors of the country's economy and controlled an industry with sensitive security issues that should continue to remain in Thai hands.

This week, the leader of Thailand's opposition Democrat Party, Abhist Vejjajiva, told journalists at the Foreign Correspondents' Club of Thailand that there was reason for worry. He added, though, that ''most Thais do not want us, as a nation, to slip into that kind of nationalism.''

''If Temasek cooperates (in making known the conditions of the Shin Corp. sale), I don't see why there would be a reason for resentment to be directed at Singaporeans,'' he said.

The Democrat Party's decision to boycott a snap parliamentary election in early April, called by Thaksin as a way to resolve the current crisis, is expected to push up the political temperature. Two smaller opposition parties have also thrown their weight behind the Democrats.

The Shin Corp. deal is only one of the many issues that have angered the government's critics. The Thaksin administration is also being charged with corruption and financial irregularities, intimidating the media and undermining independent institutions set up to check the power of the government.

Singapore is currently Thailand's second largest investor after Japan. In 2004, its investments were estimated at 600 million dollars. The portfolio includes banks, blue-chip property development and shares in the hospital and hotel sectors. The largest stockbroker in Thailand's Securities and Exchange Commission is a Singaporean entity, Kim Eng Securities.

But foreigner- bashing is not new here. In the wake of the 1997 financial crisis, there was an eruption of anti-foreigner sentiments by the Thai middle class that lasted up to 1999. Foreigners -- largely Westerners -- were faulted for creating the conditions that led to the Thai economy plunging. Helping to propagate the notion of ''the innocent Thai being at the receiving end of the rapacious foreign businessmen'' were the local broadcasting and print media.

In the early 1970s, the target of ultra-nationalism was the Japanese. In the vanguard were university students enraged at Thailand's trade deficit with Japan and the latter's dominance of the local economy. The students called for a boycott of Japanese goods, a Japanese-owned gym was attacked and, most dramatically, hundreds of students surrounded the hotel where the then Japanese prime minister Kakuei Tanaka was staying and chanted anti-Japanese slogans.

Analysts of Thai political culture are not surprised by these outbursts from a people who, in the course of their normal lives, appear gentle, calm and are known for their captivating smiles.

''It stems from the way the sense of 'Thainess' and the Thai identity has been constructed over the past century,'' David Streckfuss, a U.S. academic specialising in Thai political culture, told IPS. ''There is a certain narrowness that has the potential to erupt into xenophobia under particular conditions.''

A similar argument has been made by a Thai academic, Pavin Chachavalpongpun, in a book published late last year, 'A Plastic Nation,' about identity formation. ''Historically, the farang (foreigner) threat was ingrained into the Thai minds during the peak of Western colonisation in Asia. Today, the threat of the farang remains,'' he writes. ''Tam kon farang (worshipping foreigners or foreignness) is deemed as a crime to Thainess.''

Ironically, Thaksin was a leading exponent of such anti-foreigner sentiment when he set up his Thai Rak Thai (Thais Love Thai) party in 1998 and he road a wave of extreme nationalism to secure an emphatic victory at the January 2001 elections to begin his first term in office.

''Thaksin is now at the receiving end of this Thai nationalist streak after selling Shin Corp.,'' says Streckfuss. ''The Singaporeans are the unfortunate targets of this feeling that foreigners cannot protect and represent the interest of Thais.'' (END/2006)

Boycott Singapore

Boycott Singapore Airlines in protest against government repression during World Bank and IMF Annual Meeting. <http://www.foei.org/about/BoycottSingapore.html>

The Singapore Government has issued a warning that it is prepared to cane or imprison protestors who commit �violent crimes� during the forthcoming Annual Meeting of the World Bank and International Monetary Fund (IMF), which will be held in Singapore in September this year.

As part of a policy of constructive engagement, the World Bank and IMF have allowed non-governmental organisations to hold rallies at annual meetings as long as the groups are accredited by the two organisations.

Singapore: Not Wise for Malaysia to Replace Bridge

Singapore has reiterated yesterday that any unilateral move by Malaysia to demolish its half of the causeway and replace it with a half-bridge will bring about serious implications, “however scenic” the bridge may be.

Foreign Minister George Yeo said the republic had explained the matter to Kuala Lumpur through a third party note.

Yeo made the remark in Parliament in response to the issue raised by MPs during the debate on the 2006 budget.

In January, Malaysia said it was going ahead with the plan to replace its side of the causeway with a crooked half-bridge, to be known as the “scenic bridge”, after talks between the two countries had dragged on without any conclusion.

To a suggestion that both sides tackle first the “the low hanging fruits” in resolving the outstanding bilateral issues between Malaysia and Singapore, Yeo said: “Some are on our tree and some are on theirs. We have to decide what is the correct balance of fruits to be plucked, otherwise no fruit can be plucked at all”.

Yeo said Singapore’s relations with Malaysia were good as they rested on “a bedrock of common history and common interests”.

One recent example was the manner in which the police of both countries cooperated in tracking down a Singaporean man who was on the republic’s wanted list in connection with the murder of a nightclub owner here on Feb 15.

The man was arrested by the Kuala Lumpur police on Saturday and extradited to the republic on Wednesday.

On the overlapping claim by Singapore and Malaysia on Pedra Branca or Pulau Batu Putih, Yeo said the case before the International Court of Justice was expected to be heard next year.

“Both sides have already put in their written submissions,” he said. – Bernama

Singapore opposition leader charged for court contempt

1 Mar 06
Reuters

A prominent Singapore opposition leader said on Wednesday he has been charged with contempt of court because he made critical comments about the Singapore judiciary.

Chee Soon Juan, secretary-general of the tiny Singapore Democratic Party, was declared bankrupt by Singapore's High Court last month for failing to make libel payments to two former Singaporean prime ministers, Lee Kuan Yew and Goh Chok Tong.

In a court document seen by Reuters, the attorney-general said that Chee had acted in contempt of court during his bankruptcy petition on Feb. 10 when he refused to answer the court's questions and proceeded to read his statement.

The attorney-general also said that Chee had scandalised the judiciary 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".

During the hearing, Chee made a statement to the effect that the city-state's judiciary is not independent when it comes to dealing with opposition politicians. The statement was later distributed to the media, Singapore government members and international human rights organisations.

"They are coming after me for the statement I made. But the point that I want to make is that we’ve got to put a stop to all these defamation lawsuits which are used for political ends," Chee told Reuters on Wednesday.

Opposition politicians and human rights groups say that defamation lawsuits brought by Singapore's leaders are designed to cripple the opposition. Singapore's leaders say such action is necessary to safeguard their reputations.

Chee's February statement quoted passages from Amnesty International, the International Commission of Jurists and the New York City Bar Association, which he said have all criticised Singapore's judiciary.

Legal action

Many Singapore opposition figures have faced legal action at some time by government members.

Under Singapore's laws, there is no maximum penalty for charges related to contempt of court and Chee is not the first person to be charged with contempt of court.

In 1995, Christopher Lingle, an American professor who lectured at the National University of Singapore, wrote in the International Herald Tribune that judiciaries in some Asian countries are compliant to ruling powers.

Although the article did not mention Singapore, the Singapore attorney-general pressed contempt of court charges against Lingle, charging that he was referring to Singapore.

The academic left the country, was tried in absence and fined S$10,000, which was paid from his frozen assets in Singapore.

Known for his strong criticism of the government, Chee lost a three-year legal fight against defamation suits brought by Lee and Goh in January 2005, and was ordered to pay S$500,000 ($306,200) in damages for questioning the government's use of public funds.

Chee has already lost his right to contest the next general election -- expected later this year -- after being fined for speaking in public without a permit. He will remain barred from contesting elections as long as he remains bankrupt.

The ruling PAP -- now led by Lee Kuan Yew's son, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong -- has dominated parliament since independence in 1965. It won 82 of 84 seats in the November 2001 general election, and has never lost more than four seats in any election. Chee's party has no seats.

A High Court official told Reuters on Wednesday that the attorney-general filed the contempt of court charges against Chee on Feb. 24.

Defamation suits against the opposition must stop
Chee Soon Juan
2 Mar 06

Singapore is probably the only country that cannot produce enough opposition candidates to contest in more than half of the seats during elections thereby conceding power to the ruling party even before the first vote is cast. The coming general elections expected in a few months will be no exception.

A major cause of this crisis is the use of defamation lawsuits brought by ruling party officials against opposition leaders to obtain crippling amounts of money in costs and damages, and subsequently making them bankrupts when they cannot make the payments. Bankrupts are barred from contesting in elections. Mine is but the latest in a series of cases that have terrorized Singaporeans into submission. Below is a list of previous cases:



Year Litigants Damages awarded

1979 Lee Kwan Yew v J. B. Jeyaretnam S$130,000

1988 Lee Kwan Yew v Seow Khee Leng S$250,000

1989 Lee Kwan Yew v J. B. Jeyaretnam S$230,000

1990 Lee Kwan Yew, Lee Hsien Loong, & S$650,000

Goh Chok Tong v International Herald Tribune

1994 Lee Kwan Yew v International Herald Tribune S$400,000

1996 Lee Kwan Yew & Lee Hsien Loong S$1,050,000

v Tang Liang Hong

1997 Lee Kuan Yew et al v Tang Liang Hong S$3,630,000

1997 Goh Chok Tong v J. B. Jeyaretnam S$100,000

2005 Lee Kuan Yew & Goh Chok Tong S$500,000

v Chee Soon Juan

(US$1 = S$1.7)



The above cases are those that went to trial. There were several others that were settled out of court where opposition defendants agreed to pay PAP plaintiffs hundreds of thousands of dollars in damages because they felt that going to trial was futile and served only to increase damages and costs that would be ultimately awarded.

Apart from the International Herald Tribune, foreign news companies such Time, Newsweek, The Economist, Asiaweek (defunct), Far Eastern Economic Review (defunct), Bloomberg and Yazhou Zhoukan, a Chinese-language news weekly, have also been sued by Singapore government officials.

For the sake of democracy, freedom of speech, and openness, these defamation suits must stop. And they can be stopped if the country’s judicial system exercises its powers to become a bulwark to protect the people from an authoritarian executive bent on crushing the opposition and the media.

I have now been charged for contempt of court for making the statement that Singapore’s judiciary is unfair and not independent. Imprisonment for me is inevitable. But as one who cares deeply about democracy and freedom, I could not have done otherwise.

For too long the international community has ignored this injustice and repression that has gone on in Singapore. And because of the silence, the practice has spread to other countries in Asia: Cambodia’s Hun Sen recently sued Sam Rainsy and colleagues for defamation, Thaksin Shinawatra has sued the media in Thailand and openly professed his admiration for the Singapore system, and Malaysia’s establishment has also used defamation suits to silence its critics. Even Martin Lee has raised concerns about the “Singaporization” of Hong Kong.

In order for the region to not continue the slide towards oppression through laws, effort must be taken to examine and reform judicial systems that have come, or are in danger of becoming, co-opted by undemocratic regimes. As Singapore remains a major economic-political player in Asia, such effort must perforce start with the city-state.

In a few weeks I will face my accusers in court and will be judged by the very institution I have spoken out against. The outcome is a foregone conclusion. I will accept whatever penalty that is meted out for as much as I dread going to prison, continuing to keep quiet when injustice is used to subvert democracy is even more painful.

It is my hope therefore that Singaporeans and members of the international community alike will join me in the struggle to make Singapore’s judiciary independent, and from there turn Singapore into another bastion of democracy and freedom in Asia.


Chee Soon Juan
Secretary-General
Singapore Democratic Party

The govt wants to jail Dr Chee.Where is democracy?

Below was posted anonymously in the comment section. I am trying to find where it was first published in order to verify. If anyone can help please place the link in the comment section.

Latest News: The govt wants to jail Dr Chee..Where is democracy?

AG wants CSJ imprisoned for “scandalising” courts
28 Feb 06

The Attorney-General (AG) wants to have Dr Chee Soon Juan imprisoned for contempt of court. Dr Chee had criticised the judicial system during his bankruptcy hearing on 10 February 2006.

Mr Lee Kuan Yew and Mr Goh Chok Tong had sued the SDP leader for defamation in 2002 over the question of a loan made to the Suharto regime in 1997.

The courts had refused to allow Dr Chee to engage the services of Queen's Counsels (QC) even though Dr Chee could not find local lawyers who would dare to represent him. The courts said that the case was “not complex enough” to warrant the admission of a QC. Mr Lee and Mr Goh, however, had engaged a Senior Counsel (Singapore's equivalent of a QC) to act for them.

The courts had also denied Dr Chee an open trial by awarding the case to the plaintiffs in a summary judgment.

In his application the AG applied for the order that Dr Chee “do stand committed to prison or receive such other punishment as the court may impose for his contempt in the face of the court.”

The AG added that Dr Chee had published statements that “scandalised” the Singapore Judiciary.
The hearing is scheduled to take place on 16 March 2006. Dr Chee has applied for an adjournment to seek legal input.

What follows is a statement issued by Dr Chee on the 10th of Feb 2006 and available in pdf form here.

Statement of Chee Soon Juan submitted to the High Court, Singapore at the Bankruptcy Petition Hearing on 10 February 2006

Background: Dr Chee Soon Juan, secretary-general of the Singapore Democratic Party,was sued in 2002 by former Singapore prime ministers Mr Lee Kuan Yew and Mr GohChok Tong for defamation. The courts awarded the case to the plaintiffs and ordered Dr Chee to pay $500,000 in damages. Messrs Lee and Goh then took legal action to declare Dr Chee bankrupt. In response Dr Chee submitted this statement at the bankruptcy hearing.

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.

First, I was denied the services of QCs when the case commenced in 2002 because according to judge Tay Yong Kwang, the matter was not “complex enough”. This is in spite of the fact that I had made known the problem that few Singaporean lawyers would act for me because this involved politics. In this regard, it is instructive to note an AP report said criminal lawyer, Mr Subhas Anandan, was happy to represent “thieves and even terror suspects – but no dissidents, please.”

The fact that the plaintiffs, Mr Lee Kuan Yew and Mr Goh Chok Tong, had engaged Senior Counsel, Mr Davinder Singh, who is seasoned in handling PAP defamation lawsuits and the fact that I had no lawyer to argue my case for me seemed to not bother the courts at all. The US-based Lawyers Committee for Human Rights commented:

Neither at the hearing, on February 7 [2003], nor in the course of his judgment, did Justice Rubin display the least concern that Dr. Chee was unrepresented. The Lawyers Committee considers that this apparent lack of concern, coupled with the considerable latitude extended to Mr. Singh in his submissions to the Court, resulted in manifest unfairness in the course of the hearing and, specifically, the denial to Dr. Chee of a fair hearing that met the international norms to which we have referred.

Second, the case was awarded to the plaintiffs through Summary Judgment, which meant that I could not call witnesses and defend myself in open court. Again, the Lawyers Committee wrote:

The Lawyers Committee considers that there appear to be triable issues in this matter, such as whether or not the words spoken by Dr. Chee were defamatory and whether there was pressure brought to bear on Dr. Chee that should render his apology and admission void for duress.

In summary, not only did I not have legal representation but I also did not get a trial. It is well-known that Singapore has detention without trial. Now it seems that we also have defamation without trial.

To be sure my case is only the latest in several that have taken place through the years. Mr J B Jeyaretnam, one who has suffered the most under this legal tyranny, has had to endure much injustice. One case which he had appealed with Mr Wong Hong Toy to the Privy Council of London in 1988 will perhaps go down in judicial infamy. The Law Lords then had concluded that both the defendants had “suffered a grievous injustice” at the hands of the Singapore Judiciary and Law Society.

Another instance was the removal of former judge Mr Michael Khoo from the bench after he had passed a lenient sentence on Mr Jeyaretnam.

Through the years Mr Jeyaretnam has been hounded and was finally made bankrupt in 2001 which made him ineligible for the 2001 elections. He looks set to also be disqualified for this coming elections.

Then there was the case of Mr Tang Liang Hong who likewise was sued for defamation and made bankrupt in 1997. If ever there was any doubt as to the partiality of Singapore’s courts, this case and all its attendant proceedings removed it. It involved a police report that Mr Tang had made during the 1997 general elections about PAP leaders. Mr Lee Kuan Yew then got hold of the report, distributed it to the media, and then proceeded to sue Mr Tang for defamation.

The above have been but a small sample of instances showing the lack of independence and fairness of our judicial system. This has prompted international organizations to comment:

“Civil defamation suits are being misused by the Executive to intimidate and deter those Singaporeans holding dissenting views.” – Amnesty International

“[Defamation lawsuits have] done little to overcome the courts’ reputation as improperly compliant to the interests of the country’s ruling People’s Action Party.” – International Commission of Jurists

“What emerges…is a government that has been willing to decimate the rule of law for the benefit of its political interests. Lawyers have been cowed to passivity, judges are kept on a short leash, and the law has been manipulated so that gaping holes exist in the system of restraints on government action toward the individual. Singapore is not a country in which individual rights have significant meaning.” – New York City Bar Association

Our own former solicitor-general, Mr. Francis Seow said, “the judiciary…contort themselves into obscene positions to favour…the government.”

The US embassy in Singapore expressed concern over “the ruling party’s use of the court system to intimidate political opponents.”

Stuart Littlemore, QC, reporting for the International Commission of Jurists wrote:
“The Singapore leadership has a long-standing record of using the high court as a mechanism for silencing its opponents – by suing them for statements that, in any comparable jurisdiction, would be seen as part of a robust political debate inseparable from democratic freedoms, and by being awarded such unconscionably high damages and costs as to bankrupt the defendants, forcing them out of parliament.”

More recently, Chief Justice Yong Pung How sued his former remisier, Mr Boon Suan Ban, for defamation when Mr Boon allegedly harassed Mr Yong over some financial matters. Mr Boon was subsequently arrested and remanded at the Institute for Mental Health at the “pleasure of the President.” The papers pertaining to the case were then sealed.

In 2005, High Court Judge Mr V K Rajah ruled that a silent protest staged by four activists calling for transparency and accountability from the Singapore Government was “incendiary” and that such protests would “improperly undermine both a hard-won national dignity and a reputable international identity.” This is in spite of the fact that the Singapore Constitution clear states that only five or more persons gathered in a public area constituted an illegal assembly.

The question of the independence of Singapore’s judiciary is also the subject of a dispute between two commercial companies that is taking place presently in Ontario, Canada. The arguments of one party can be found on:
http://uy.http3.net/Corrupted_
Singapore_Regime_Judiciary.pdf

Through the decades opposition politicians have been, and continue to be, hounded, persecuted, and prosecuted by the PAP through the courts. All this time no one in Singapore has dared to say anything. There comes a time, however, when one must look deep into oneself and ask how much more of the persecution one has to suffer in silence. Today I have made the decision not to remain silent any more and tell you what you don’t want to hear: That the judiciary in Singapore is, sadly, not independent especially when it comes to dealing with opposition politicians.

I wish I didn’t have to do this. I wish I could say that my country’s judicial system is independent and fair. But I can’t because that would be a lie. It would be a much easier decision for me, and more importantly for my family, to walk away from this bankruptcy hearing and accept the punishment that the court has meted out. But my conscience dictates otherwise and I must take the path that in all likelihood will lead to dire consequences. However, making this statement is a decision that I have chosen and, having made it, to accept the consequences that it brings.

I hope to make this statement a start to a campaign to pry the country’s judiciary from the clutches of the PAP Government. I may or may not succeed in my endeavour, but I would rather live my life having spoken and fought for the truth than to share it with cowardice and deceit. In my little way, I would have stood up for Singapore, my home too.

Chee Soon Juan
10 February 2006
cc
Mr Lee Kuan Yew, Mentor Minister
Mr Lee Hsien Loong, Prime Minister
Mr Goh Chok Tong, Senior Minister
Mr Yong Pung How, Chief Justice
Mr Philip Jeyaretnam, President, Law Society
Mr J B Jeyaretnam
Mr Francis Seow
Mr Tang Liang Hong
Amnesty International
Human Rights Watch
Human Rights First
Asia Human Rights Commission
International Commission of Jurists
Lawyers’ Rights Watch Canada
American Bar Association
New York City Bar Association
Indonesian Bar Association
India Bar Association
Council of Asian Liberals and Democrats
Alliance for Reform and Democracy in Asia
National Endowment for Democracy (NED)
International Republican Institute (IRI)
National Democratic Institute (NDI)
Kim Campbell, President (Club de Madrid)
Korea Democracy Foundation
Taiwan Foundation for Democracy
Forum Asia
Swedish International Liberal Centre
Olof Palme Centre
Jarl Hjalmarsson Foundation
World Movement for Democracy
Community for Democracies
George Soros Foundation
International Freedom for Exchange and
Expression
Southeast Asia Press Alliance
Reporters Without Borders
Freedom House
Political and Economical Consultancy
Transparency International
Non-violent International
John McCain, Chairman (IRI)
Madeleine Albright , Chairman (NDI)
David Kilgour, MP (Canada)
Raynell Andreychuk, Senator (Canada)
Graham Watson, MEP, Leader (ELDR)
Martin Lee, QC
Stuart Littlemore, QC
David Wingfield, Council for Enernorth
US Embassy
German Embassy
Swedish Embassy
Belgium Embassy
French Embassy
Netherlands Embassy
Canadian High Commission
Australian High Commission
New Zealand High Commission
British High Commission
European Commission

Ads run foul of SingaBLOODYpore rules

Ads run foul of Singapore rules


By Nassim Khadem, Canberra
March 1, 2006

SINGAPORE will get a censored version of Tourism Australia's "So where the bloody hell are you?" campaign because the advertisements do not comply with its strict censorship laws.

When the $180 million campaign is launched in Singapore, a series of Xs will replace the word bloody in print advertisements. The television version will not be aired there.

But the advertisement already appeared uncensored in Singapore's Straits Times last week, when the newspaper ran a story about the campaign.

So far 45,000 foreigners, including 24,000 Americans and 10,000 Britons, have logged on to the campaign website. Tourism Australia spokesman Sasha Grebe said extensive market research had shown the advertisements were a hit.

The Advertising Standards Bureau has received three complaints about the advertisement and it would go before the review board for a decision on whether it breached advertising's code of ethics.

Meanwhile, the Association of Australian Commercial and Media Photographers president North Sullivan said the decision by the advertisement's creators, M&C Saatchi, to use a British photographer to shoot the print advertisements was a "slap in the face for Australian creative talent".

Activists Concerned over Singapore's "Caning" Threat

Emad Mekay

WASHINGTON, Feb 28 (IPS) - Concern is brewing among advocacy groups and civil society organisations that monitor the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank, a staple of protests during the annual meetings of the two organisations, after Singapore threatened a crackdown on some of their activities.

A number of international civil society groups are drafting a letter to the government of Singapore to dissuade the country from vows that its chief security official made against their activities.

Singapore's Home Affairs Minister Wong Kan Seng had reportedly said that certain civil society actions may "attract severe punishment, including caning and imprisonment" in this southeast Asian country where a political gathering of more than four people requires a security permit.

Activists interpreted this as a more or less veiled threat towards civil society organisations and wrote a letter to be sent to Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong, possibly later this week, asking him to roll back the warning and allow full access to the groups during the Sept. 19-20 meetings.

"Many groups are concerned about these threats and intimidations, but are determined not to let such threats undermine actions being planned," said Rukshan Fernando of the Bangkok-based Asian Forum for Human Rights and Development (FORUM-ASIA) in an email message to IPS.

The 184-member IMF and the World Bank will hold their annual meeting amid what is expected to be highly tight security in the wealthy city-state, where public demonstrations are banned and the last police licence for a demonstration in Singapore was issued in the late 1980s.

The annual meetings, held outside of Washington D.C. once every three years, are the largest and most comprehensive gathering of global financial representatives in the world. They are expected to draw about 16,000 visitors this year.

Organisers in Singapore, a country of 4.5 million people, expect some 300 to 500 non-governmental organisations to be accredited by the IMF and World Bank for the meeting.

Meetings for international financial and trade institutions, which often discuss the course of global economic development and plan the underpinning policy strategies, have attracted heated activities from advocacy groups along with street protests, some of them marred by violence.

Around 30,000 demonstrators turned up for the 1999 World Trade Organisation (WTO) talks in Seattle in the United States, and more than 20,000 protested against the Bank and Fund in Washington the following year. However, fewer numbers have protested since the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks in the United States.

Some critics have pointed out that these institutions have been holding their meetings in tightly controlled countries, including the last IMF/World Bank meeting outside Washington, held in Dubai. In 2001, the WTO organised its ministerial conference in Doha, the capital of Qatar, ruled by an authoritarian regime with close military ties to the United States.

Singapore, however, where people are penalised for failing to flush a public lavatory, for instance, had to accept a request by the IMF and World Bank to allow demonstrations during the meeting in order to be able to host the gathering, which usually attracts finance, trade ministers and central bank governors from around the globe.

But activists say that if implemented, the threats from Singapore to place restrictions on the activities of civil society groups could in fact impede their engagement during the meetings on strategic issues such as trade, aid, debt and sustainable development.

"Thus, we would like to highlight the importance of spontaneous and unrestricted civil society actions before, during and after the WB-IMF meeting," the groups said in their draft letter to the Singapore government.

Dozens of organisations have endorsed the letter so far. These include Focus on the Global South, the Halifax Initiative Coalition in Canada, the Think Centre, and Jubilee South.

Singapore says that the IMF and World Bank have an 'established process' to engage these civil society groups, including having them take part in activities throughout the annual meetings.

The groups said they expect that even the regulated processes, agreed upon by the IMF and the World Bank with the government of Singapore, will likely follow previous patterns where participation has been selective and exclusive, and has provided limited opportunities for the expression of civil society voices.

But a spokesperson for the IMF told IPS that the security issue for the meeting is under discussion with the government of Singapore and said his institution will press for the full participation of civil society groups.

"The bottom line is that we want to have an inclusive meeting, with active and open NGO participation. That's the whole plan," said William Murray of the IMF. "I am not aware of any desire by anybody to cane anybody. This is a hypothetical situation and frankly security is an issue of ongoing discussions."

Civil society groups have long criticised the IMF and the World Bank, both dominated by industrialised nations, for placing the interests of international corporations, the rich and local elites before the middle classes and the poor around the world.

Another point of alarm for civil society groups were statements by the government that it would only allow peaceful protests by foreign organisations - waiving the rules that normally apply in Singapore û and that local groups will not be able to participate

The activists said that peaceful protests are universal rights that should be extended "to all people, including Singaporean people and organisations."

Earlier in January, the Consumers Association of Penang and Friends of the Earth Malaysia called for a boycott of Singapore Airlines, the national carrier, to protest the warning issued by the Singapore government that it is prepared to "cane" or imprison protesters.

"Imposing restrictions on demonstrations by civil society to express their outrage at the brutal policies of the IMF and World Bank that impoverish societies and destroy the environment, is indeed a restriction on the freedom of expression and the right to dissent against unjust policies", said Mohd Idris, who heads the two groups.

Activists fear that Singapore's vow to place restrictions on civil society groups is likely to be translated into unwarranted screening of participants in the events and anyone who enters Singapore during that period.

The Singapore government has been keen to use the opportunity to promote tourism and showcase the country as a leading financial centre.

During the last annual meetings in Washington, it set up a colourful booth to advertise its housing in 2006. It has already launched a website in anticipation of the event that touts the country's glittering skyscrapers and thriving port. Singapore says it has also prepared a visual arts extravaganza that will take place for the first time in Southeast Asia. (END/2006)