Dec 17, 2015 | News
The decision of the High Court of Singapore ordering blogger Roy Ngerng to pay damages to Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong following a civil defamation suit brought in 2014 constitutes a major blow for freedom of expression in the country, said the ICJ today.
In a judgment released on 17 December 2015, the High Court ordered Roy Ngerng to pay SG$100,000 in general damages (approximately US$70,667) and SG$50,000 (approximately US$35,330) in aggravated damages.
This decision comes approximately six months after a three-day hearing on assessment of damages took place.
“Under international standards, individuals must not be the target of defamation actions over comments made about public figures, particularly where the subject matter is of public interest,” said Sam Zarifi, ICJ’s Regional Director for Asia and the Pacific.
“This decision sends a clear message that the people of Singapore are not in fact free to express their opinions about matters of public interest,” he added.
This suit against Roy Ngerng was brought by Prime Minister Lee who argued that Roy Ngerng, in his blog, suggested that the Prime Minister bore responsibility for criminal misappropriation of the Central Provident Fund (CPF), the social security savings plan of the citizens of Singapore.
In a summary judgment delivered in November 2014, the High Court found Roy Ngerng liable for defaming the Prime Minister. Roy Ngerng was later ordered by the court to pay Prime Minister Lee SG$29,000 (approximately US$22,300) for the legal fees and related expenses incurred pertaining the application for the summary judgment. Roy Ngerng did not appeal the High Court’s decision.
“The government’s ongoing use of defamation proceedings to silence critics is a deplorable practice that undermines the rule of law. It is very concerning to see measures imposed in the region that cast a chilling effect on freedom of expression of activists and human rights defenders,” said Zarifi.
The findings in this decision are inconsistent with international standards on freedom of opinion and expression that establish that pecuniary awards should be conferred only when non-pecuniary remedies, including apology, rectification and clarification are insufficient.
Background:
Roy Ngerng maintains a blog called The Heart Truths to discuss social issues. Many of the posts on his blog advocate for more transparency in the management of the Central Provident Fund.
On 15 May 2014, Ngerng published the allegedly defamatory post on his blog. A few days later, he was asked by the Prime Minister’s lawyers to take down the post, apologize and make a written offer of damages and costs, which Ngerng did within the following five days.
Despite these actions, the Prime Minister proceeded to sue the blogger for defamation. Prime Minister Lee later applied to the High Court to enter interlocutory judgment for damages to be assessed. The court ruled in his favor.
The hearing on the assessment of damages took place from 1-3 July 2015. At the end of the hearing, the High Court directed the parties to file written submissions to address issues that were raised during the three-day hearing.
In June 2015, the ICJ submitted a legal opinion to the High Court in support of certain aspects of the defendant’s position.
Contact:
Emerlynne Gil, ICJ’s Senior International Legal Adviser for Southeast Asia, t: +668 4092 3575 ;
e: emerlynne.gil(a)icj.org
Dec 10, 2015 | News
The Ambassador of the Federal Republic of Germany to Thailand and the ICJ held an event at the German Residence in Bangkok to mark Human Rights Day.
In his welcome speech, the Ambassador, Peter Prügel, stressed the importance of the protection of universal human rights which are essential for peace, long-term stability and sustainable development worldwide and referred to Germany’s long-standing support of the ICJ and its partners in Thailand.
Angkhana Neelapaijit, newly appointed Commissioner of Thailand’s National Human Rights Commission, respected human rights defender and victim of enforced disappearance then spoke about her new role and the human rights challenges currently facing Thailand.
A panel discussion on the prevailing human rights situation in Thailand then followed, which touched on a range of topics including the situation in deep South, community rights, migrants and refugees, the current legal framework, freedom of expression and assembly, the requirement to protect human rights defenders under international law and the upcoming Universal Periodic Review of Thailand by the Human Rights Council in 2016.
The panelists were:
- ICJ Commissioner, Professor Emeritus Vitit Muntarbhorn, Law Faculty, Chulalongkorn University;
- Sitthipong Chantarawirod, Chairperson of Muslim Attorney Centre Foundation;
- Pranom Somwong, Representative of Protection International Thailand;
- Somchai Homlaor, Chairperson of Cross Cultural Foundation; and
- Yaowalak Anuphan, Head of Thai Lawyers for Human Rights.
Approximately 100 members of Thailand’s civil society, the diplomatic community, the National Human Rights Commission, affected communities, academia, the United Nations, and Thailand’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs attended the event.
Dec 3, 2015 | News
The ICJ condemned the passage of the National Security Council bill by Malaysia’s House of Representatives today. The passage of the bill underlines the need to establish reforms in the lawmaking processes in the country, the Geneva-based organization says.
The ICJ calls on the Government of Malaysia to undertake these reforms immediately.
The bill, hastily tabled at the House of Representatives on 1 December 2015 by the Government, was passed by a vote of 107 in favour and 77 against the proposal.
Members of the ruling party, Barisan Nasional, voted overwhelmingly in its favor.
The vote took place despite repeated calls from Malaysian civil society, opposition lawmakers, and human rights advocates to delay consideration to allow for extensive debate and adequate consultations on the draft legislation.
The ICJ deplored the manner in which the government steamrolled the bill to passage.
“The same rushed maneuvers occurred when the Prevention of Terrorism Act (POTA) and amendments of the Sedition Act were hastily passed in parliament earlier this year,” observed Emerlynne Gil, ICJ’s Senior International Legal Adviser for Southeast Asia.
“There seems to be a disturbing pattern of avoiding deliberative care on legislation that is both addressed to serious security concerns that have the greatest implications for human rights,” she added.
The ICJ considers that the poorly conceived legislation gives overbroad powers to the Prime Minister and the security forces which is inconsistent with the rule of law and could lead to serious human rights violations
The bill establishes a National Security Council (NSC) that will be the central authority in the government on matters pertaining to national security.
The NSC will be headed by the Prime Minister and composed of the Deputy Prime Minister, Minister of Defence, Minister of Home Affairs, Minister of Communication and Multimedia, Chief Secretary, the Commander of the Armed Forces, and Inspector-General of Police.
Under the bill, the Prime Minister is granted the power to declare any part of Malaysia as a “security area” if it is found by the NSC that such area is under serious threat from any person or entity that could harm the general public, the economy, infrastructure or other national interests.
Any part of the country may be declared a “security area” by the Prime Minister for up to six months and the declaration may be renewed an infinite number of times.
A Director of Operations is also to be appointed to oversee the operations over the “security areas”.
The specific powers of the Director of Operations are left vague, but they are overbroad and therefore prone to abuse.
They apparently include authority to prevent any person from entering these “security areas”, to transfer persons out of these areas, to impose curfews, and at least temporarily, to take possession of any property necessary in the interest of national security or for the accommodation of the security team.
The security team under the Director of Operations will have the power to conduct warrantless arrests and warrantless searches and seizures.
There are no processes specified by which affected persons may challenge such actions, either before a court or administrative body, nor are there other procedural safeguards.
Any members of the security team would be authorized to “use any amount of force against a person or entity to the extent that is reasonable and necessary within the circumstances to protect national security”.
The ICJ notes that under international law, lethal force may only be used to the extent strictly necessary to protect life.
Finally, the draft law provides immunity from any legal proceeding for members of the NSC, the Director of Operations, the security team, and other government staff involved in the administration of the “security area” for carrying out their duties and functions under the law.
There is no exception even in cases involving serious violations of human rights and crimes under international law, for which immunity is not permitted.
“The wide ranging powers conferred to members of the NSC and the security team clearly lack any form of safeguards and will inevitably lead to arbitrary exercise of authority, in contravention of the rule of law. This bill could very likely be used to further restrict freedom of expression and opinion and other rights in the country,” said Emerlynne Gil.
Vague and overbroad language in laws are inconsistent with the rule of law, contravening the principle of legality, the ICJ says.
This poses particular hazards in respect of national security legislation.
The bill will now need to be passed by the Senate and thereafter, the Malaysian King will have to assent to it so that it becomes law.
The ICJ expects the bill to be passed by the Senate and assented to by the King without thorough deliberations.
Nevertheless, it still calls on both the Senate and the King to reject the present draft, with a view to returning it the House to make necessary reforms in line with the rule of law.
Contact:
Emerlynne Gil, ICJ Senior Legal Adviser (Bangkok), t: +66840923575, e: emerlynne.gil(a)icj.org
Nov 25, 2015 | News
The ICJ, the UNDP and the Office of the Supreme Court of the Union (OSCU) held a High Level Dialogue on “Drafting and Implementing a Code of Judicial Ethics” in Nay Pyi Taw on 24-25 November 2015.
This followed on a commitment by the OSCU to create a new code and to work together with the ICJ and UNDP to ensure it is informed by and implemented in accordance with international best practice.
The Judicial Ethics Review Committee, Regional High Court Judges and other senior court administrators participated in the Dialogue.
The participants and their international counterparts from the ICJ and UNDP discussed the content of the Draft Code of Ethics, international standards on Judicial Codes of Ethics and accountability mechanisms.
In opening the Dialogue, the Honourable Supreme Court Justice of the Union, U Mya Thien explained that the new code reflecting international standards would enhance public trust and promote accountability in the Judiciary.
In his opening remarks, Sam Zarifi, the ICJ’s Regional Director for Asia and the pacific noted the historic occasion in which the world was watching transition in Myanmar.
During the Dialogue, former ICJ Commissioner and UN Special Rapporteur on the Independence of Judges and Lawyers, Dato Param Cumaraswamy, and Justice Murray Kellum of Australia shared their wealth of experience developing codes of ethics and accountability mechanims at the national and international levels.
Both explained that public perception of the Judiciary is key in a transition to the rule of law and human rights.
All participants agreed the Myanmar’s judiciary is not yet independent and that its current judicial code of ethics requires updating.
It was acknowledged that new code of ethics would develop the independence of the judiciary in Myanmar.
Sam Zarifi explained that, “in order for the Supreme Court to assert judicial independence it must demonstrate that it can hold itself accountable to a code of ethics.”
Both the UNDP and the ICJ congratulated the OSCU for following its Strategic Plan for 2015-2018 and engaging in a dialogue designed to further this process.
Both expressed willingness to continue working with Myanmar’s judiciary on the issues of judicial independence, the rule of law and human rights.
Nov 3, 2015 | News
The ICJ and 26 other civil society organizations called today upon the Vietnamese government to comprehensively revise the draft Law on Religion to conform with the country’s obligations under international human rights law.
The groups are concerned that Vietnam’s draft Law on Belief and Religion is inconsistent with the right to freedom of religion or belief.
In its current form, the draft Law places limitations on freedom of religion or belief that extend beyond those permitted under international human rights law that is binding on Vietnam, they say.
Article 18(3) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), to which Vietnam is a state party, requires the authorities to ensure that the freedom to manifest one’s religion or belief is subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary and proportionate to protect public safety, order, health, or morals or the fundamental rights and freedoms of others.
While the draft Law purports to acknowledge “the right to freedom of religion and belief” and proclaims that the “government respects and protects the freedom of religion and belief of everyone,” the provisions of the draft Law, if passed, would act as a powerful instrument of control placing sweeping, overly broad limitations on the practice of religion or belief within Vietnam, perpetuating the already repressive situation.
Contact:
Kingsley Abbott, ICJ International Legal Adviser, (Bangkok), t:+66 944701345, e-mail: kingsley.abbott(a)icj.org
Vietnam-Draft Law on Religion-Advocacy-2015-ENG (full statement, in PDF)
Oct 29, 2015 | News
The Singaporean government should halt the imminent execution of Kho Jabing and commute his death sentence, said the ICJ today.
In 2010, Kho Jabing was convicted and sentenced to death, after having been found guilty of murder.
Amendments made to its laws on the death penalty in 2012 allowed for persons who had been subjected to the death penalty the option to elect to be considered for re-sentencing under the new rules.
Kho Jabing, under this process, was re-sentenced to life imprisonment and 24 strokes of the cane.
The prosecution, however, appealed the re-sentencing, and the case was brought to the Court of Appeal.
On 14 January 2015, the Court of Appeal decided to reinstate the death penalty in the case.
Kho Jabing filed a clemency appeal and the Court of Appeal rejected this on 19 October 2015.
The authorities have not released the date of Kho Jabing’s execution, but it is believed that he is likely to be executed during the first week of November 2015.
“Singapore has obscured the extent and nature of its execution practices and its record on respect for the right to life”, said Sam Zarifi, ICJ’s Regional Director for Asia and the Pacific.
“Failure to be transparent about its use of the death penalty, flies in the face of international human rights standards,” he added.
The ICJ opposes the death penalty in all circumstances and considers the imposition of the death penalty to constitute a denial of the right to life and a form of cruel, inhuman and degrading punishment.
The view that the death penalty is never justifiable is shared by the overwhelming majority of States, United Nations institutions, and numerous civil society organizations.
In December 2014, the UN General Assembly, by a very wide majority, adopted a Resolution repeating its call for all States retaining the death penalty to institute a moratorium on the practice, with a view to abolition.
The ICJ has also received information that Singapore carried out two executions in October 2015. The authorities, however, have not issued an official statement regarding these executions.
To date, the Singapore government has not released the exact number of executions undertaken in the country.
In 2004, UN Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary, or arbitrary executions emphasized the importance of transparency wherever the death penalty is applied.
According to the UN Special Rapporteur, “Secrecy as to those executed violates human rights standards.”
In addition, a “full and accurate reporting of all executions should be published, and a consolidated version prepared on at least an annual basis.”
The ICJ calls on the Singapore government:
- to stop the execution of Kho Jabing and commute his sentence, to one that does not include caning, which constitutes a form of cruel, inhuman or degrading punishment
- to institute an immediate moratorium on executions
- to take all necessary measures to abolish the death penalty in law
- to make public a full and accurate report of all executions in the country
Contact:
Emerlynne Gil, ICJ Senior International Legal Adviser for Southeast Asia, (Bangkok), t: +66840923575, e: emerlynne.gil(a)icj.org
