Singapore must stop targeting HR defenders and media
LETTER
| We, the 37 undersigned groups and organisations, and three
individuals, are appalled by Singapore’s denial and response to the
highlighting of alleged “barbaric” unlawful practices in execution
method that was highlighted vide a Jan 16 media statement issued by
Lawyers for Liberty (LFL).
Singapore claims that it is "untrue, baseless and preposterous".
We
are also shocked by Singapore’s invoking of the Protection from Online
Falsehoods and Manipulation Act (Pofma), and the issuing of notices and
directions ordering LFL and three parties that have shared the
allegations - Singaporean activist Kirsten Han, The Online Citizen
website and Yahoo Singapore - to correct the false statements.
To
comply with this Pofma Order, Singapore authorities said: "They will be
required to carry a correction notice alongside their posts or articles
stating that their posts or articles contain falsehoods”.
Non-compliance
with the Pofma notice is a crime, and if convicted an individual may be
liable to a fine not exceeding S$20,000 or imprisonment for a term not
exceeding 12 months or both, whereas others will be liable to a fine not
exceeding S$500,000.
The notice can also lead to an
access blocking order, whereby service providers will have to disable
access by end-users in Singapore to the online location.
It
is not a defence even if one has applied to the responsible minister to
withdraw or vary the order, appealed to court or is “subject to a duty
under any written law, any rule of law, any contract or any rule of
professional conduct, that prevents the person from complying with the
Pofma notice”.
It is deplorable to ask any human
rights defender or media agency to publicly take a position that the
alleged rights violations and/or injustices that they highlighted or
reported on are false or contains falsehood.
Where
there is an allegation of a wrongdoing or a crime, it is the duty of a
human rights defender or any concerned person to highlight it, and
thereafter, it falls on the relevant government, or relevant national,
regional or international bodies to conduct the needed independent
investigation and determine whether what was alleged was true or
baseless.
Note that many investigations may even
come to no conclusions due to insufficiency of evidence, and this should
in no way lead to the assumption that the allegations were untrue.
A
perusal of the LFL statement shows that the source of their
information, amongst others, is from a credible source - a Singapore
prison officer.
This would reasonably be someone who had first-hand knowledge of what was being alleged.
In the LFL statement, it also mentions that this officer is prepared to come forward and testify at the appropriate forum.
LFL
also highlighted this allegation earlier, in its Nov 23, 2019
statement, where it said: “Finally, we’ve also received shocking
information relating to the process of execution at Changi prison.
“We
have incontrovertible evidence that unlawful and extremely brutal
methods are secretly used in carrying out hangings by the Singapore
Prison Services. We are prepared to reveal this evidence, supplied by
prison officers, in due course.”
LFL, in the Jan 16
statement, also said it had written to the Singapore authorities and
informed them it is prepared to meet them and hand over the evidence in
its possession.
However, the Singapore government met LFL’s disclosures with deafening silence.
Significantly,
the government also did not deny LFL’s allegation of brutality in
carrying out hangings, which has been widely reported.
The
Singapore government should have rightfully met with LFL, received the
evidence and conducted a proper investigation and disclosed its
findings.
According to law, police are not supposed
to torture detainees, but the fact is that some police officers do
torture and even kill those in their custody.
It may not the government’s fault, but the fault of these errant officers who did wrong.
But,
if a government, after receiving information of such wrongdoings,
chooses to do nothing about it, then it can be said that the government
that “covers up” wrongdoings of public servants or simply ignores it may
be just as guilty of the said wrongdoings.
The media
is obliged to report to the public, and that includes statements and
positions of ordinary people and human rights defenders.
Most
media outlets, would as a matter of good practice, try to get a
response from the alleged perpetrator or other relevant parties but the
news ought never be stifled simply because the perpetrators (or
interested parties) do not provide an immediate response.
Of course, most media will carry even a late response from the alleged perpetrator or other interested parties.
Obligations imposed on the media should not be the same as those imposed on individuals using social media.
Many
good people who share news or views on social media, if they do get a
response from alleged perpetrator or interested parties, will also
usually share that response with their readership.
In
Malaysia, many human rights violations and even crimes that were
highlighted by HR Defenders or media were investigated by the
government.
As an example, in Malaysia, it was the investigation by the New Straits Times
Special Probes Team into the mass killings in Wang Kelian in 2015 that
highlighted and suggested a massive, coordinated cover-up.
It
revealed the human trafficking death camps had been discovered months
earlier, but police only announced the discovery on May 25.
It
also questioned why the police ordered the destruction of these camps,
which were potential crime scenes before they could be processed by
forensics personnel?
The Malaysian government’s
response was to investigate this case, and on Jan 16, it was reported
that the Home Ministry will present a report by the Royal Commission of
Inquiry (RCI) on the Wang Kelian human trafficking incident to the
Cabinet next week.
Hopefully, thereafter the report will be made public.
Like
Malaysia, Singapore too should have conducted a comprehensive
investigation on the allegations raised by LFL, and not try to “force”
LFL and others who highlighted this issue to publicly admit that it
contained falsehood.
Publicly highlighting
allegations or facts of wrongdoings, rights violations and injustices
today is a means of ensuring that justice is done, for otherwise
relevant governments and enforcement authorities can sometimes chose to
simply “cover-up” such allegations.
It is wrong for
any government to use laws and crimes (with serious penalties) to
prevent human rights defenders, media and others from highlighting
allegations of wrongdoings.
Such laws that undermine
the responsibilities of human rights defenders, including media, ought
to be repealed. Freedom of expression, opinion and peaceful assembly
ought to be protected.
The courage to highlight
possible human rights violations, injustices and wrongdoings should be
applauded, not stifled or penalised.
The media
reported that the Singapore Minister of Communications and Information
had on Jan 23 directed the Infocomm Media Development Authority to get
Internet service providers here to block the LFL website for not
complying with a correction direction issued under the fake news law.
Therefore, we call on Singapore to:
-
immediately and unconditionally withdraw the notice and internet access
blocking orders pursuant to Pofma that were directed at LFL, Kristen
Han, The Online Citizen, Yahoo Singapore and others.
-
ensure an independent and thorough investigation is conducted
concerning allegations of unjust and barbaric practices that allegedly
happened during the hanging of persons in Singapore.
-
respect human rights defenders and media agencies, and not to stifle
them from carrying out their responsibility and duty to highlight
allegations of human rights violations and injustices.
- abolish the death penalty.
The
above is a joint statement from Aliran, Anti-Death Penalty Asia Network
(Adpan), Asian Federation Against Involuntary Disappearances (Afad),
Association of Parents of Disappeared Persons from Indian Administered
Jammu and Kashmir, Association of Human Rights Defenders and Promoters-
HRDP in Myanmar, Asociación de Trabajadoras del Hogar a Domicilio y de
Maquila–Atrahdom, Guatemala, Australians Against Capital Punishment,
Banglar Manabadhikar Suraksha Mancha (Masum), India, Dutch League For
Human Rights, Empower Foundation Thailand, Families of Victims of
Involuntary Disappearance (Find) – Philippines, German Coalition to
Abolish the Death Penalty, Global Women's Strike United Kingdom, Japan
Innocence and Death Penalty Information Center, Karapatan Alliance
Philippines, LAW United Kingdom, Madpet (Malaysians Against Death
Penalty and Torture), Malaysian Trade Union Congress, Manushya
Foundation Thailand, MAP Foundation (Migrant Assistance Program)
Thailand, North-South Initiative, Odhikar Bangladesh, Payday Men’s
Network United Kingdom. Persatuan Komuniti Prihatin Selangor dan Kuala
Lumpur, Programme Against Custodial Torture & Impunity (Pacti)
India, People's Empowerment Foundation Thailand, Sarawak Dayak Iban
Association (Sadia), Singapore Anti Death Penalty Campaign, Suaram
Malaysia, Terai Human Rights Defenders Alliance Nepal, The Advocates for
Human Rights, The Day of the Endangered Lawyer Foundation, The Julian
Wagner Memorial Fund Australia, Union for Civil Liberty Thailand,
Workers Assistance Center Inc Philippines, World Coalition Against the
Death Penalty/ Coalition mondiale contre la peine de mort, WH4C (Workers
Hub For Change), Vucong, Giao (School of Law, Vietnam National
University Hanoi), N Jayaram (Journalist, Bangalore) and Mohammad
Ashrafuzzaman (human rights defender from Bangladesh, in Hong Kong)
The views expressed here are those of the author/contributor and do not necessarily represent the views of Malaysiakini. - Malaysiakini,2/2/2020
See related posts-
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment