Home / News / Urgent Appeals / SINGAPORE/USA: A blogger sentenced for expressing opinion on the judiciary

SINGAPORE/USA: A blogger sentenced for expressing opinion on the judiciary

September 29, 2008

ASIAN HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION - URGENT APPEALS PROGRAMME

Urgent Appeal Case: AHRC-UAC-216-2008

29 September 2008
---------------------------------------------------------------------
SINGAPORE/USA: A blogger sentenced for expressing opinion on the judiciary

ISSUES: Freedom of opinion and expression
---------------------------------------------------------------------

Dear Friends,

The Asian Human Rights Commission (AHRC) has received information that a blogger was sentenced to three months in prison for expressing his opinion on the judiciary of Singapore over the internet on September 17, 2008.

CASE DETAILS:

According to information received, Gopolan Nair, a US citizen and a former Singaporean lawyer was arrested in Singapore on May 31 under article 13D of the Miscellaneous Offences Act. This was precipitated by his criticism of judge Belinda Ang Saw Ean. She had handled a lawsuit which Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong and his father, former Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew, brought against Chee Soon Juan, the secretary general of the Singapore Democratic Party (SDP) and his sister, Siok Chin.

He wrote about the Judge in his blog that she was "prostituting herself during the entire proceedings, by being nothing more than an employee of Mr. Lee Kuan Yew and his son and carrying out their orders". Four days after his arrest, he was charged with "sedition" for criticizing Ang and another judge, Lai Siew Chiu, for their handling of the case. He was released on bail on June 4.

On September 18, he was sentenced to three months in prison by the lower court for "insult" under Article 228 of the criminal code. He asked for national and international support of his case on the internet. (Please see also youtube)

Meanwhile, a week before his sentence was handed down the attorney general of Singapore took out contempt of court proceedings against the publisher of the Asian edition of the Wall Street Journal and two of its editors. He said that their editorials "impugn the impartiality, integrity and independence of the Singapore judiciary".

ADDITIONAL COMMENTS:

Mr. Chee Soon Juan, secretary general of the Singapore Democratic Party (SDP), and his sister and fellow activist Chee Siok Chin were sentenced to jail terms of 12 days and 10 days respectively for contempt of court on June 3, 2008.

Anyone can make comments or have opinions on the decisions made by a judge and, which is, in fact, needed for a healthy democracy in a democratic society. However, in Singapore, opinions and expression, in particular those which touch upon politics, race and religion, are tightly regulated and criminal defamation has been widely used to limit critics.

SUGGESTED ACTION:

Please write letters to the relevant authorities listed below and urge them to free Nair. Please also urge them to repeal the criminal defamation law in the country.

Please be informed that the AHRC has also written separate letter to the UN Special Rapporteur on the freedom of opinion and expression calling for intervention in this case.

To support this appeal, please click here:

SAMPLE LETTER:

Dear _________,

SINGAPORE/USA: A blogger sentenced for expressing opinion on the judiciary

Details of victim: Mr. Gopolan Nair, 58 years old, US citizen and former lawyer in Singapore; arrested on May 31 and released on bail on June 4; sentenced three months' imprisonment under article 228 of the criminal code on September 17

I strongly condemn the decision of three months' imprisonment of Gopolan Nair for commenting on the Singapore judiciary in his blog.

According to the information that I have received, he was arrested on May 31 for his comment in his blog on the judiciary regarding the case of Chee Soon Juan and Chee Siok Chin who were sentenced to jail term for contempt of court and due to his comment, he was sentenced three months' imprisonment under article 228 of the criminal code on September 17.

From the information I have learned that while monitoring the cross-examination on the case of two persons mentioned above, he wrote about the judge in his blog by saying that she was, 'prostituting herself during the entire proceedings, by being nothing more than an employee of Mr. Lee Kuan Yew and his son and carrying out their orders'. It is his comment on the decision of the judiciary over the case.

If a person who criticizes the judgment is simply punished on the grounds of 'insult' under the criminal code, how the Singapore can achieve improvement and development in the area of the judiciary. This will also be a serious setback on the freedom of opinion and expression, which people have little room for it in the country. Article 228 of the criminal code should have not been applied to this case because it fails to pursue a legitimate aim. The criminal sanction against him is also not a proportionate to the damages caused. Its abuse will be a serious setback on the freedom of opinion and expression.

Thus, I urge that the decision by the lower court on his case must be reversed in the appellate court and the criminal sanction must be withdrawn. International and regional human right institutions such as UN Human Rights Council, UN Special Rapporteur on the freedom of opinion and expression has also pointed out the right to freedom of expression is of paramount importance in any democratic society which enables everyone to participate in the free political debate.

I also urge that there must be considerations in the country and measures taken to develop the system in order to promote and protect the freedom of opinion and expression. Otherwise, the discrepancies of decision by the judiciary of Singapore and that of other countries will go far beyond without imagination.

I take this opportunity to remind the government of Singapore that in many common law countries, prosecutions for criminal libel are rare and criminal sanctions resulting in penal sentences have not been used in defamation cases in many years.

Yours sincerely,

----
PLEASE SEND YOUR LETTERS TO:

1. Mr. Lee Hsien Loong
Prime Minister
Prime Minister's Office
Orchard Road
Istana
Singapore 238823
SINGAPORE
Fax: +65 6835 6621
E-mail: pmo_hq@pmo.gov.sg or lee_hsien_loong@pmo.gov.sg 

2. S. R. Nathan
President
Office of the President
Istana, Orchard Road
Singapore 0922
SINGAPORE
Fax: +65 6735 3135
E-mail: S_R_Nathan@Istana.gov.sg 

3. Prof. S JAYAKUMAR
Minister of Law
100 High Street #08-02
The Treasury
Singapore 179434
SINGAPORE
Tel: +65 6332 8840
Fax: +65 6332 8842
E-mail: jayakumar_s@mfa.gov.sg 

4. Mr. George W. Bush
President
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington, DC 20500
United State of America (USA)
Fax: +1 202 456 2461
E-mail: comments@whitehouse.gov or vice_president@whitehouse.gov (for vice president)

Thank you.

Urgent Appeals Programme
Asian Human Rights Commission (ua@ahrchk.org)

Document Type :
Urgent Appeal Case
Document ID :
AHRC-UAC-216-2008
Countries :
Issues :
Document Actions
Share |
Subscribe to our Mailing List
Follow AHRC
Extended Introduction: Urgent Appeals, theory and practice

A need for dialogue

Many people across Asia are frustrated by the widespread lack of respect for human rights in their countries.  Some may be unhappy about the limitations on the freedom of expression or restrictions on privacy, while some are affected by police brutality and military killings.  Many others are frustrated with the absence of rights on labour issues, the environment, gender and the like. 

Yet the expression of this frustration tends to stay firmly in the private sphere.  People complain among friends and family and within their social circles, but often on a low profile basis. This kind of public discourse is not usually an effective measure of the situation in a country because it is so hard to monitor. 

Though the media may cover the issues in a broad manner they rarely broadcast the private fears and anxieties of the average person.  And along with censorship – a common blight in Asia – there is also often a conscious attempt in the media to reflect a positive or at least sober mood at home, where expressions of domestic malcontent are discouraged as unfashionably unpatriotic. Talking about issues like torture is rarely encouraged in the public realm.

There may also be unwritten, possibly unconscious social taboos that stop the public reflection of private grievances.  Where authoritarian control is tight, sophisticated strategies are put into play by equally sophisticated media practices to keep complaints out of the public space, sometimes very subtly.  In other places an inner consensus is influenced by the privileged section of a society, which can control social expression of those less fortunate.  Moral and ethical qualms can also be an obstacle.

In this way, causes for complaint go unaddressed, un-discussed and unresolved and oppression in its many forms, self perpetuates.  For any action to arise out of private frustration, people need ways to get these issues into the public sphere.

Changing society

In the past bridging this gap was a formidable task; it relied on channels of public expression that required money and were therefore controlled by investors.  Printing presses were expensive, which blocked the gate to expression to anyone without money.  Except in times of revolution the media in Asia has tended to serve the well-off and sideline or misrepresent the poor.

Still, thanks to the IT revolution it is now possible to communicate with large audiences at little cost.  In this situation there is a real avenue for taking issues from private to public, regardless of the class or caste of the individual.

Practical action

The AHRC Urgent Appeals system was created to give a voice to those affected by human rights violations, and by doing so, to create a network of support and open avenues for action.  If X’s freedom of expression is denied, if Y is tortured by someone in power or if Z finds his or her labour rights abused, the incident can be swiftly and effectively broadcast and dealt with. The resulting solidarity can lead to action, resolution and change. And as more people understand their rights and follow suit, as the human rights consciousness grows, change happens faster. The Internet has become one of the human rights community’s most powerful tools.   

At the core of the Urgent Appeals Program is the recording of human rights violations at a grass roots level with objectivity, sympathy and competence. Our information is firstly gathered on the ground, close to the victim of the violation, and is then broadcast by a team of advocates, who can apply decades of experience in the field and a working knowledge of the international human rights arena. The flow of information – due to domestic restrictions – often goes from the source and out to the international community via our program, which then builds a pressure for action that steadily makes its way back to the source through his or her own government.   However these cases in bulk create a narrative – and this is most important aspect of our program. As noted by Sri Lankan human rights lawyer and director of the Asian Human Rights Commission, Basil Fernando:

"The urgent appeal introduces narrative as the driving force for social change. This idea was well expressed in the film Amistad, regarding the issue of slavery. The old man in the film, former president and lawyer, states that to resolve this historical problem it is very essential to know the narrative of the people. It was on this basis that a court case is conducted later. The AHRC establishes the narrative of human rights violations through the urgent appeals. If the narrative is right, the organisation will be doing all right."

Patterns start to emerge as violations are documented across the continent, allowing us to take a more authoritative, systemic response, and to pinpoint the systems within each country that are breaking down. This way we are able to discover and explain why and how violations take place, and how they can most effectively be addressed. On this path, larger audiences have opened up to us and become involved: international NGOs and think tanks, national human rights commissions and United Nations bodies.  The program and its coordinators have become a well-used tool for the international media and for human rights education programs. All this helps pave the way for radical reforms to improve, protect and to promote human rights in the region.