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
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
Jun 19, 2015 | Advocacy, Non-legal submissions
Today, the ICJ made a submission to the Human Rights Council’s Working Group on the Universal Periodic Review in advance of the Human Rights Council’s review of Singapore.
In its submission, the ICJ expressed concern about the following:
(1) corporal punishment;
(2) the death penalty;
(3) the continued criminalization of consensual same-sex relations;
(4) corporate accountability for companies registered in Singapore; and
(5) international human rights instruments and mechanisms.
A copy of the submission can be found here:
Singapore-ICJ UPR-Advocacy-non legal submission-2015-ENG
Mar 6, 2015 | News
The ICJ today expressed its dismay that the Singapore Court of Appeal, in a judgment issued on 4 March 2015 declined to declare caning, a painful form of corporal punishment, to be unlawful.
The administration of caning violates the absolute prohibition of torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading punishment under international law.
Despite this prohibition, the Court of Appeal determined that any international legal prohibition had no effect on Singapore, since the legislature had not made it part of the country’s domestic law.
The ICJ emphasized that Singapore’s failure to prohibit caning in its own national law in no way makes caning a lawful act.
Under international law, caning remains wrong and illegal, irrespective of the country’s domestic arrangements.
The Court of Appeal also ruled that caning, administered as a form of judicially imposed punishment in Singapore, does not amount to torture.
The Court of Appeal stated that caning did not “breach the high threshold of severity and brutality that is required for it to be regarded as torture.”
The ICJ notes that the international prohibition against ill-treatment extends not only to torture, but also to cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment and punishment.
The ICJ considers that caning constitutes both types of ill-treatment.
The ruling was issued by the Singapore Court of Appeals in the case of Yong Vui Kong, a 26-year old man who appealed against his sentence of 15 strokes of the cane and life imprisonment imposed as a punishment for an offence under the Misuse of Drugs Act.
Upon his conviction in 2011, Yong Vui Kong had initially been sentenced to death.
Following changes in the law and an application for re-sentencing to the High Court, his sentence was modified in 2013 to life imprisonment and ‘15 strokes of the cane’.
In his appeal, which was dismissed by the Court of Appeal, Yong Vui Kong challenged this sentence on several grounds, including that caning constitutes torture, which is prohibited under international law.
“The Court of Appeal’s ruling is out of step with Singapore’s obligations to prevent, prohibit and punish all forms of torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. International human rights bodies have made clear that caning and other forms of corporal punishment violate the absolute prohibition of torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. As such it must be prohibited,” said Emerlynne Gil, International Legal Adviser for Southeast Asia of the ICJ.
Laws in Singapore that permit the imposition of corporal punishment are inconsistent with Singapore’s obligation to prohibit torture and other ill-treatment at all times and in all circumstances.
Consequently, in 2011 the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child asked Singapore to “prohibit unequivocally by law, without any further delay, all forms of corporal punishment, including caning, in all settings”.
In addition, when Singapore went under the Universal Periodic Review of its human rights record before the UN Human Rights Council in 2011, several States recommended that the authorities abolish all corporal punishment, including caning.
The ICJ also emphasizes that all forms of torture and other cruel inhuman or degrading treatment are absolutely prohibited by customary international law and international treaties binding on Singapore, including the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) and the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD).
The prohibition against torture is also a peremptory norm of international law, as recognized by numerous legal authorities and by all States in repeated UN General Assembly resolutions.
The peremptory character of the norm means that it overrides all other laws, international or domestic. The Court of Appeal dismissed any effect that the peremptory character of the prohibition might have on its administration in Singapore.
The ICJ calls on the lawmakers in Singapore to act without delay to outlaw corporal punishment.
Contact:
Emerlynne Gil, International Legal Adviser for Southeast Asia, t +66840923575 ; e emerlynne.gil(a)icj.org
Mar 4, 2015
322. JUA 12/12/2013 Case no: SGP 4/2013 State reply: 18/12/2013 Alleged contempt of court charge against a prominent LGBT rights activist. Observations 323. The Special Rapporteur would like to thank the Government of Singapore for providing a detailed response to the...
