Wednesday, May 01, 2019

Scandalising the Judiciary contempt in Singapore - but just fine no prison sentence unlike Malaysia?

Anwar Ibrahim was tried and convicted for Sodomy two times, and the judgment was right, and the courts did no wrong. There was no political pressure or directions or orders... Well, if you say otherwise - you may be cited for contempt - scandalising the court? Well, that would be an infringement of our freedom of speech, opinion...would it not? Are we no longer allowed to highlight possible corruption, interference, wrongdoings by our judges and courts...
"Any act done or writing published calculated to bring a Court or a judge of the Court into contempt, or to lower his authority, is a contempt of Court."
Should this archaic contempt be abolished? YES, it should. Singapore used it...and recently the new Malaysian Attorney General also used it...
 
Well, in Malaysia, a lawyer was sentence to fine and jail...in Singapore just a fine(if no pay, then off to jail)...Below actions that you can do for the Singapore case...
The Federal Court today sentenced lawyer Arunachalam Kasi, better known as Arun Kasi, to 30 days’ jail and fined him RM40,000 after finding him guilty of contempt of court over his two statements criticising the proceedings and decision of a court case.
This kind of contempt of court is archaic - and it violates one's freedom of speech, expression and opinion - It has already been abolished in the UK and many other jurisdictions ...
Do not say or make comments that may have a tendency to result in a loss in confidence in the court/judiciary/judges ... in Malaysia, it was about possible corruption...and questionable removing of parts of the judgment of an Appellate Court judge dissenting judgment   ...in Singapore, it seems to be about  a comment that Malaysian judges better than Singapore judges - '...commented that Malaysian judges were “more independent than Singapore’s for cases with political implication”. The Attorney-General’s Chambers (AGC) reasoned that the post “ did not constitute fair criticism of the court” and that it “posed a risk that public confidence in the administration of justice would be undermined”. 
[*** Qualification - Have not seen or read both the Malaysian or the Singaporean court judgments - so what is stated in above paragraph  is merely based on media reports and/or other sources]



The Observatory for the Protection of Human Rights Defenders, a partnership of FIDH and the World Organisation Against Torture (OMCT), has received new information and requests your urgent intervention in the following situation in Singapore.
New information:
The Observatory has been informed by reliable sources about the sentencing of Mr. Jolovan Wham, social worker, human rights advocate, and former Executive Director of the NGO Humanitarian Organisation for Migration Economics (HOME)[1] .
According to the information received, on April 29, 2019, the Singapore High Court imposed on Mr. Jolovan Wham a fine of S$5,000 (around 3,290 Euros) following his conviction on charges of scandalising the court. Mr. Jolovan Wham was also required to pay S$5,000 in legal costs to the Prosecutor and S$2,997.82 (around 1,973 Euros) in disbursements to the Attorney’s General Chambers. Mr. Wham will appeal the sentence. 
The Observatory recalls that on October 9, 2018, the Singapore High Court found Mr. Jolovan Wham guilty of “scandalising the court” under Article 3(1)(a) of the Administration of Justice (Protection) Act. The charges stemmed from one of his Facebook posts in which he made comments on the independence of Singaporean judges (see background information). During a hearing on March 21, 2019, the Prosecutor asked the High Court to sentence Mr. Jolovan Wham to a fine of between S$10,000 (around 6,580 Euros) and S$15,000 (around 9,870 Euros).
The Observatory condemns the sentencing and ongoing judicial harassment against Mr. Jolovan Wham, which seem to be only aimed at punishing him for his legitimate human rights activities and for the exercise of his right to freedom of opinion and expression. The Observatory calls on the authorities of Singapore to put an immediate end to the judicial harassment against Mr. Jolovan Wham.
The Observatory recalls that this is not the first act of judicial harassment against Mr. Jolovan Wham. On February 21, 2019, Singapore’s State Court sentenced Mr. Jolovan Wham to a fine of S$3,200 (around 2,070 Euros) or a default imprisonment of 16 days for “organising public assemblies without a permit” (under Article 16(1)(a) of the Public Order Act), and “refusing to sign [a] statement” (under Article 180 of the Criminal Code). These charges were related to Mr. Jolovan Wham’s involvement in the organisation of a public discussion entitled “Civil Disobedience and Social Movements”[2].
Background information:
On October 9, 2018, the Singapore High Court found Mr. Jolovan Wham guilty of violating Article 3 (1) (a) of the 2016 Administration of Justice (Protection) Act (“scandalising the court”). Mr. Jolovan Wham’s prosecution and conviction stemmed from one of his Facebook posts published on April 27, 2018, in which he shared a news story about a constitutional challenge against Malaysia’s Anti-Fake News Act and commented that Malaysian judges were “more independent than Singapore’s for cases with political implication”. The Attorney-General’s Chambers (AGC) reasoned that the post “ did not constitute fair criticism of the court” and that it “posed a risk that public confidence in the administration of justice would be undermined”. Mr. Jolovan Wham’s sentencing hearing was first set for November 7, 2018 and postponed several times. Article 3 (1) (a) of the Administration of Justice (Protection) Act provides for up to three years in jail or a fine of S$100,000 (around 62,740 Euros), or both.
This was the first conviction for “scandalising the court” under the 2016 Administration of Justice (Protection) Act, which came into effect on October 1, 2017. This crime is defined as “Any person who scandalises the court by intentionally publishing any matter or doing any act that —(i) imputes improper motives to or impugns the integrity, propriety or impartiality of any court; and (ii) poses a risk that public confidence in the administration of justice would be undermined”.
Actions requested:
Please write to the authorities of Singapore asking them to:
i.Guarantee in all circumstances the physical and psychological integrity of Mr. Jolovan Wham and all human rights defenders in Singapore;
ii. Put an end to all acts of harassment, including at the judicial level, against Mr. Jolovan Wham and all human rights defenders in Singapore, and ensure that they are able to carry out their activities without hindrance;
iii. Conform to the provisions of the UN Declaration on Human Rights Defenders, adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations on December 9, 1998, especially Articles 1, 6(c), and 12.2; and
iv. Ensure in all circumstances the respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms in accordance with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
Addresses:
·     Mr. Lee Hsien Loong, Prime Minister of Singapore, Fax: +65 6332 8983/6835 6621, Email: pmo_hq@pmo.gov.sg; Twitter: @leehsienloong;
·     Mr. Kasiviswanathan Shanmugam, Minister for Home Affairs, Minister of Law, Fax: +65 62546250/ 633 28842, Email: mha_feedback@mha.gov.sg ;
·     Mr. Vivian Balakrishnan, Minister for Foreign Affairs, Fax: +65 64747885, Email: mfa@mfa.sg;
·     Mr. Lucien Wong, Attorney General, Fax: +65 6538 9000;
·     H.E. Mr. Foo Kok Jwee, Ambassador, Permanent Mission of Singapore in Geneva, Switzerland, Fax: +41-22-796 8078, Email: mfa_geneva@mfa.gov.sg ;
·     H.E. Mr. Jaya Ratnam, Ambassador, Embassy of Singapore in Brussels, Belgium, Fax: +32 2 660 8685; Email: singemb_bru@mfa.sg
Please also write to the diplomatic missions or embassies of Singapore in your respective country. 




Singapore

Jolovan Wham, SDP's John Tan fined S$5,000 for contempt of court


By Jalelah Abu Baker @JalelahCNA
(Updated: )

SINGAPORE: Activist Jolovan Wham and opposition politician John Tan were on Monday (Apr 29) fined S$5,000 each for contempt of court.

Both men were found guilty of the offence in October last year. In April 2018, Wham published a Facebook post alleging that Malaysia's judges were more independent than Singapore's in cases with political implications.

The Attorney-General's Chambers (AGC) initiated a contempt of court case against him. Less than a month later, Tan, a Singapore Democratic Party (SDP) politician, said on Facebook that the AGC's actions confirmed the truth of Wham's comment.

The prosecution, in its sentencing submissions last month, had asked the court to order the men to apologise and take down the posts. Wham did neither.

READ: Court reserves judgment on contempt of court sentences against Jolovan Wham, SDP's John Tan

Justice Woo Bih Li on Monday delivered his decision on the sentences, after he reserved judgment in a sentencing hearing last month.


The judge said that Wham’s failure to take down the Facebook post and refusal to apologise were taken into account in sentencing. However, to order Wham to apologise is “meaningless” as it would be “clearly insincere”, he added.

The prosecution had also called for Wham to be fined between S$10,000 and S$15,000 and in default, jailed for two to three weeks. It also wanted Tan to be sentenced to at least 15 days in jail. Tan submitted that he should be jailed for three days.

READ: Activist Jolovan Wham found guilty of scandalising judiciary

In asking for a custodial sentence for Tan, the prosecution pointed to his previous conviction in 2008. He was convicted of contempt of court for turning up at a defamation hearing in a T-shirt with a kangaroo dressed in a judge’s gown.

Tan indicated that he wanted a custodial sentence so as not to affect his eligibility to contest in future elections. Under the law, if a politician is fined S$2,000 and above, he or she would not be able to stand for election. The threshold when it comes to a jail term is one year.

However, Justice Woo rejected a custodial sentence for Tan. He noted that the court does not have to impose such a sentence even if both the prosecution and defence asked for it.

Justice Woo said that the quantum for the fine in the law – which has been in the Constitution since Singapore’s independence – may not have been revised for inflation, and the fine may previously have been considered more favourable to a one-year jail term. The opposite perception may be true now, he added.

"Tan is responsible for the situation that he finds himself in," he said, adding that political consequences are not relevant to sentencing.

He added that Tan’s taking down of the post after a sentencing hearing in March was not a reflection of remorse.

“It was an 11th-hour manoeuvre to try and persuade the court to accede to his request not to impose a fine,” Justice Woo said.

Wham and Tan will be jailed one week if they are unable to pay the fine. Mr Eugene Thuraisingam, who represents both men, told the High Court that he intends to appeal against the conviction and sentencing.
Source: CNA/ja(cy)

Read more at https://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/singapore/jolovan-wham-sdp-john-tan-fined-contempt-of-court-11487364

Read more at https://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/singapore/jolovan-wham-sdp-john-tan-fined-contempt-of-court-11487364
at

No comments:

Post a Comment