Speech by Han Hui Hui at the National Day Celebrations at Hong Lim Park. She speaks about the letter of demand from Singapore’s biggest law firm, Allen and Gledhill that she had defamed the Council for Private Education (CPE) through her email and asked whether a statutory board which is part of the government body sue a citizens for defamation.

Good afternoon everyone, my name is Han Hui Hui.
On 15th April this year, I received a letter of demand from Singapore’s biggest law firm, Allen and Gledhill.
It states that I’ve defamed the council for private education through my email.
I was only 21 years old and I was puzzled.

How can them, CPE, a statutory board, a government body threaten to sue me a Singaporean for defamation?
How is asking questions defamatory?
Where is our freedom of speech?
Is this what they call a fair and just society last night?

So I sent the letter of demand to more than ten law firms out there but they were afraid to take up this case.
That was when I know our courageous lawyer Mr M Ravi.
As a human rights lawyer, he explained that the freedom of speech, enshrined in article 14 of the Singapore constitution, protects Singaporeans from defamation proceedings by the government and public bodies.
The right to sue for defamation is reserved only for individuals and private entities, not public bodies.

On 19th April, I went to the high court to seek declaration that CPE being a government body does not have the rights to sue or threaten to sue Singaporeans for defamation.
I’m now seeking protection against this defamation suit via the constitution and the ordinary laws of the land.
This lawsuit is not for anyone but for everyone, for the entire Singapore population, for the sake of our freedom of speech.
I took up this case not because I’m against the government but because of the love for our country, the need to protect human rights, our constitutional rights, our freedom of speech, our basic citizens’ rights.

Who does the CPE reports to? The ministry of education.
Who does MOE reports to? The parliament.
Who pays them their salary? Us, we the taxpayers.
How can they use our money to sue us for defamation?

The attorney general’s chamber is now involved as well.
The fact that AGC, the government is being involved further shows that our stand that the CPE a government body under Ministry of education does not have the right to sue for defamation.
If public bodies funded by the public, can sue for defamation this will result in a stifling of criticisms, or genuine grievances, especially from those who do not have such an amount of resources.
How can they use their public fund to sue us?

We should not allow public bodies to use lawsuits to silence criticisms against them.
Why is the government going against our most creative cartoonist Mr Leslie Chew?
Did any of his work Demon-cratic caused violence or people to have inability to pay their bills or be forced to leave the country?
We need to build a stronger and more inclusive Singapore so can we have our freedom of speech to hear the voice of everyone?
So our constitutional rights must be upheld against being sued for defamation by public bodies.

Statutory board being a governmental body does not have the rights to sue or threaten to sue Singaporeans.
I can forget about this case, I can forget about this lawsuit, I don’t have to fight this lawsuit especially when they’re trying to negotiate with me now.
But I want to protect the rights of all other Singaporeans out there.
Should we fight for our constitutional rights and the future of Singaporeans?

How would we ever know even if they are in the wrong?
If we do not love Singapore, if we do not love our own country, would we be here today?
Singaporeans, it’s time for us to play our part for the sake of our future.
Thank you very much.

Happy national day and Selemat Hari Raya.

[blockquote style=”3″]Han Hui Hui has created a blog dedicated to her case and is currently raising funds to fight her case. http://statboard-suecitizen.blogspot.sg/[/blockquote]
Subscribe
Notify of
0 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
You May Also Like

NTUC FairPrice at Teck Whye restricts number of customers into stores as "crowd control measures"

The NTUC FairPrice store in Teck Whye put up a notice of…

续第二搭客大厦 樟宜机场第四搭客大厦也暂停运作!

新加坡樟宜机场今日(12日)发文告,指基于搭客量急促减少,加之航班需求短期内难以恢复到疫情前的状态,故此将暂停第二和第四搭客大厦的运作。 第二搭客大厦是在5月1日起,宣布暂停营运长达18个月。航班服务也将转移到其他搭客大厦。 从本月16日起,第四搭客大厦也将暂停营运,这意味着樟宜机场将只剩下第一和第三搭客大厦继续运作。 第四搭客大厦的商店和餐厅等,也将暂停营业;连接第三和第四搭客大厦的巴士服务,将暂停直第四搭客大厦恢复运作为止。 四月份客流量去年同比跌99.5巴仙! 根据樟宜机场集团提供的数据,该机场上月仅有2万5200搭客流量,比起去年558万客流量,足足跌了99.5巴仙。 以及处理3千870趟班次。空运吞吐量为9千6500吨。

30% ticket holders were”no shows” for SEA Games opening ceremony: SINGSOC

The Singapore Southeast Asian Games Organising Committee (SINGSOC) says it “apologises for the…

台湾通过亚洲首个同婚专法

5月17日是“国际不再恐同日”,也是台湾通过同性婚姻合法化的历史性一天。今日同性婚姻专法(5月17)在台立法院通过三读。台湾执政民进党在立法院强力支持该草案,反对党国民党则有多数委员投下反对票。 根据台媒报道,台湾同性婚姻历经多年争议,自2017年起,台湾大法官释宪,要求立法院必须在2年内完成相关修法或制定专法,若未能于今年5月23日达成同性婚姻的平等保护,同性伴侣将可根据《民法》规定结婚,拥有和异性伴侣相同的权力和义务。 台湾立法院日前召开朝野协商,针对不同党员与政府机关提出的草案商讨,其中包括政院版《司法院释字第748号施行法草案》、国民党立委赖士葆版《公投第12案施行法草案》,以及民进党立委林岱桦版《司法院释字第748号解释暨公投第12案施行法草案》 三法律版本差异存于双方关系及收养关系中。例如,双方当事人的关系在民进党版本称为“同性婚姻”,赖士葆版是“同性家属”,而林岱桦版是“同性结合”。行政院草案规定同婚双方可“收养”另一人亲生子女,而其余2版本否定收养权,但可共同“监护”未成年子女。 最终同意通过政院版,并以66同意票,27反对票三读通过,由蔡英文为首的民进党大多投同意票;反对票则大部分由国民党投出。 专法由5月24日开始实施,意味着年满18岁以上的台湾同性伴侣可以依法登记结婚,但专法内并没有未对领养小孩与跨国婚姻多做叙述。 一直以来,同性婚姻课题在台湾备受争议,性别维权团体与反对同性婚姻团体双方各持己见,为了有效解决争议,于去年11月24日举办全民公投结果。根据结果显示,逾70巴仙台湾人民以保障异性婚姻制度而反对同性婚姻法案。因此台湾政府决定不修改民法对婚姻的定义,而是为同性婚姻另立专法。 今日已有逾四万名台湾公民聚集在立法院周遭,包括台湾各地维权团体,声援支持同性婚姻合法化,并全程关注消息出炉。结果出炉后,许多维权团体纷纷表示感谢与支持,而网民也随即患上印有彩虹背景的大头照,庆贺同性婚姻合法化, 总统蔡英文也于社交媒体上为此祝贺。她承认多年来备受争议的同性婚姻问题,已造成台湾公民间的严重分歧,但她强调,目前唯有行政院版草案是与立法院的判决匹配。 虽然如此,反对声浪并未随之减缓,据BBC报道,台湾许多保守教会团体已陆续表达反对同婚法案之意见,批评蔡英文政府不遵守去年台湾公投结果。他们认为公投民意应大于大法官释宪决议,而且国民党也随即谴责蔡英文政府在拖延处理同婚造成对立,故不应仓促通过。