alexau
Statement by members of the general public on the Attorney General’s Chambers’ action against Mr Au for his blog posts.

Singapore, 29 November 2013

We are deeply concerned that the Attorney General’s Chambers (AGC) has been granted leave to take action against Singaporean blogger, Mr Alex Au, for “scandalising the judiciary” in his blog post, “377 Wheels Come Off Supreme Court’s Best Laid Plans”.1

The right of free expression is enshrined in Article 14 of our Constitution.  We believe that robust public debate is necessary for national progress.  The AGC’s action, however, reflects an overzealous desire to police public opinion.  This cannot be healthy for a mature, first world nation.  If Mr Au had erred, then his claims should be rebutted in public. This would enable Singaporeans to make up their own minds.

We agree that it is important to uphold public confidence in the judiciary.  However, this cannot mean that our judges should not be subject to scrutiny.  The AGC’s action, rather than enhancing confidence in the judiciary, might weaken public confidence.  It also implies that the public is not allowed to form opinions on judicial processes.

International legal opinion supports the advancement of the law in respect of public comment. In 2012, the UK Law Commission recommended abolishing the offence of “scandalising the judiciary” because it is “an infringement of freedom of expression and out of step with social attitudes”.  The Commission noted that the offence,

“belongs to an era when deferential respect to the judiciary was the norm.  But social attitudes have changed.  Enforcing the offence today would do little to reinforce respect for the judiciary and, if judges are thought to be using it to protect their own, could strengthen any existing distrust or disrespect.”2

We note that the AGC action against Mr Au is not in keeping with the spirit of Singapore’s position at the 2011 UN Universal Periodic Review of Human Rights that “Political postings on the Internet are prevalent, including many that are highly critical of the Government.  No blogger or other online publisher has been prosecuted for such postings.”3 Further, this AGC action contradicts Singapore’s obligations in the ASEAN Human Rights Declaration, adopted on 18 November 2012. Article 23 states, “Every person has the right to freedom of opinion and expression, including freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information, whether orally, in writing or through any other medium of that person’s choice.”4

We call upon the AGC to help the Government of Singapore uphold its ideals and its international commitments, for the continued progress and prosperity of our nation.

 

Signed by
Simeon Ang Kevin Lee Onh Solly
K Z Arifa Lynn Lee Dickson Su
Jacqui Ch Richard Lee Osman Suleiman
Sharmeen Nina Chabra Lee Shiuh Meng Kevin Prof Paul Ananth Tambyah
Xin Hui Supanee Chan Philip Selwyn Lemos Alvin Tan
Qizhong Chang Tricia Leong Alvin Tan Cheong Kheng
Kenneth Chee Mun Leon Leow Zi Xiang Bian Tan
Jeremy Chen Dr Liew Kai Khiun Caryn Tan Sun
Chew Kheng Chuan Angie Lim Eugene Tan Siah Yew
Leslie Chew Gary Lim Meng Suang Joe Tan
Tania Chew Lim Jialiang Joel Bertrand Tan
Joshua Chiang Lim Kay Siu Jolene Tan
Brendan Chong Lynette Lim John L Tan
Bryan Choong Michelle Lim Tan Joo Hymn
Jean Chong Nicholas Lim Yew Kenneth Tan
Chong Kai Xiong Andrew Loh Kirsten Tan
Chong Wai Fung Loh Chee Leong Netina Tan
Chua Chuen-Seah Dr Loh Kah Seng Dr Roy Tan
Lucy Davis Andee Loo Serena Tan
Fazlur Yusuf Braema Mathi Sylvia Tan
Fong Hoe Fang Marayd McElroy Estee Tay
Assoc Professor Cherian George Haron Mong Jennifer Teo
Jessica Goh Neo Swee Lim Teo Soh Lung
Johannes Hadi Ng Mei Fay Professor Tey Tsun Hang
Han Hui Hui Ng Yisheng Callan Tham
Kirsten Han Roy Ngerng Thaw Win
Helmi Yusuf Dr Noor Rahman Melissa Tsang
Ivan Heng Brian Nugawela Kelly Then
Dr Russell Heng Irene Oh Shelley Thio
Adrian Heok Kay Omar Ivan Thomasz
Irene Ho Ong En Hui Dr Pingtjin Thum
Sam Ho Yanchun Ong Jeremy Tiang
Vanessa Ho Stephan Ortmann Dawn Toh
Isrizal Mohamed Isa Pak Geok Choo Toh Boon Hwee
Kenneth Jeyaretnam Vivian Pan Jason Wee
Kwan Jin Engsien Pek Lawrence Wee
Shawn Kathiravan Ravi Philemon Jolovan Wham
Dr Khoo Hoon Eng Francisco Raquiza Dr Vincent Wijeysingha
Koh Boon Luang Indulekshmi Rajeswari Andy Wong
Dan Koh Gene Sha Rudyn Brenton Wong
Patrick Koh Alfian Sa’at Wong Chee Meng
Joses Kuan Mansura Sajahan Dexter Wong
Annie Kwan Nora Samosir Joe Wong
Ken Kwek Katerina Sandiman Melissa W S Wong
Dana Lam Seet Cheng Yew Michael Wong Tong Kwong
Vincent Law Ariffin Sha Teresa Woo
David Lee Rev Miak Siew Dr Woon Tien Wei
Lee Gwo Yinn Siew Kum Hong Terry Xu
Howard Lee Frederique Soh Benjamin Xue
Dezmond Yeo Antoinette Yzelman Julius Yang
Yeo Yeu Yong Rachel Zeng Rev Dr Yap Kim Hao
Zeng Ziting Zulkarnain Hassan Gerald Heng
Stephen Koh Foo Hui Shien, Catherine Ronald Koh
Shawn Tan Dr Charan Bal Jeffrey George
Low Yit Leng Jocelyn Teo Chia Vincent
Lisa Li Kok Heng Leun Damien Chng
Priscilla Chia
[spacer style=”1″ icon=”none”]

Reference links

[1]http://yawningbread.wordpress.com/2013/10/05/377-wheels-come-off-supreme-courts-best-laid-plans/.

[2]http://lawcommission.justice.gov.uk/news/2140.htm. The full report is available at http://lawcommission.justice.gov.uk/docs/lc335_scandalising_the_court.pdf. The offence has since been abolished in the UK.

[3]http://www.mfa.gov.sg/content/dam/mfa/images/media_center/special_events/upr/UPR%20National%20Report_Singapore.pdf.

[4]http://www.asean.org/news/asean-statement-communiques/item/asean-human-rights-declaration.

[spacer style=”1″ icon=”none”]

On 25th November 2013, The Attorney-General’s Chambers (AGC) has filed for an application to bring a contempt of court action against Mr Au over two posts published on his blog Yawning Bread last month.

The two posts are titled “377 Wheels Come Off Supreme Court’s Best-Laid Plans” and  “Church Sacks Employee And Sues Government – On One Ground Right, On Another Ground Wrong”.

However Justice Belinda Ang ruled on Wednesday, 27th November 2013 that the AGC can only proceed with contempt of court action on one of his blog posts titled “377 Wheels Come Off Supreme Court’s Best-Laid Plans” that was published on October 5.

Subscribe
Notify of
0 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
You May Also Like

疫情未减缓民众警惕! 网络现“公审不带口罩者”现象

全球冠状病毒19疫情,自去年12月底爆发至今已近五个月,而各国也正积极抗疫。我国疫情自“阻断措施”以来,仍不断攀升,甚至在截至本月16日中午2时,本地新增728例冠状病毒19确诊病例,破单日最高增幅纪录。 随着疫情的加重、政府实施“阻断措施”,卫生部也推行出门即带上口罩,因此人们对于不戴口罩的行为更为敏感,一旦被发现出门不带口罩将会有网友将其拍摄或录影。尽管拍摄下来的用意是为了提醒大家,但却也在近日出现另一种声音— 拍摄者矫枉过正的心态。 日前网友Kavitha Haridas在脸书上上传一段视频,内容为一名印裔男子正气喘呼呼,脸上未戴口罩,拍摄视频的人怒气冲冲走到印裔男子前,先是质问你是否有口罩在身上,随后便大声斥责,为何在走路时不戴上口罩。 而被拍摄的印裔男子则低头表示,好的会戴上,但却仍无法平息拍摄者的怒火。拍摄者质问,“你是不是有受过教育?是不是不明白现在的处境?” 印裔男子则立马拿起手上的布遮住嘴巴,频频道歉。然而,拍摄者还得理不饶人,直呼“我们并不欠你 ”,视频也到此结束。 Kavitha认为,虽然印裔男子在出门后没有带上口罩,但从男子的装扮来看相信是正在运动中。即使不是在运动,但质问别人是否曾受过教育并不正确,对男子都是一种侮辱。 “我完全延误躲在相机后的人,你无权对另一个人这么做,请试想,如果这发生在你父母身上,你还会希望别人这么跟他说话吗?” 尽管疫情日益严重,戴上口罩是必然的行为,但似乎也开始出现矫枉过正的行为。目前体育理事会也鼓励新加坡人持续锻炼保持身体健康,加强免疫力。 因此,若个人仍能独自或与同一屋檐下的人外出运动,但在外出时,必须带上口罩。然而,若民众是跑步、慢跑、骑自行车或类似运动量较大的活动,则无需带上口罩,在运动完毕后再带上口罩。…

矢言出示文件反驳安华指控 《砂》主编怒斥伊党违反保密协议

“马来西亚伊斯兰党是否有赔偿《砂拉越报告》逾140万令吉?”人民公正党主席安华要伊党证实和澄清资金来源,伊党否认有赔偿,《砂》主编克莱尔更斥责伊党说法具误导性,违反保密协议。 《砂》主编克莱尔更在《砂》网站上发言指伊党主席哈迪阿旺于今年1月已经递交了作为撤销诉讼案的赔偿金给《砂》,并展示了值142万2980令吉的支票。 安华要求澄清资金来源 根据之前报导,公正党主席安华曾在2月26日对记者指出,克莱尔曾在报导中指伊党接受巫统献金。 有关的报导导致伊党在2017年对克莱尔提出月中诉讼,并向克莱尔索赔。但是伊党主席哈迪阿旺在今年2月接受了英国伦敦高庭的建议,和《砂》达成庭外和解,撤回起诉,并且赔偿逾百万令吉给克莱尔。 安华呼吁伊党领袖对有关事件进行解释,并且交代赔偿金的资金来源。 虽然伊党主席哈迪阿旺驳斥有关说法,但是安华2月27日则表示自己掌握了一份银行账单,能证明哈迪阿旺曾经支付克莱尔140万令吉。 伊党将召开记者会反击 对于安华的追问,伊党总秘书拿督达基尤丁2月28日表示安华指控不实,伊党将会召开记者会,出示所有文件做出反击。 他是在当天到布城反贪会总部接受录供后,向记者如是表示。“如果安华真的有所谓的账单,就请他出示证据。” 达基尤丁表示,他们已经把伊党自2015年1月至2018年12月的银行户头账单交给反贪会了。 针对达基尤丁的言论,克莱尔随即在《砂》网站上载支票照片,更指责达基尤丁言论带有误导性。…

No immediate plans to develop Clementi Forest; but it will remain classified for residential use: Minister Desmond Lee

The Clementi Forest will remain classified for residential use, though there are…