Singapore’s Legal System Attacked At Lawyers’ Meeting Friday, Oct 19 2007 

AFP, 19 Oct 2007

SINGAPORE (AFP) – Singapore’s legal system, praised by foreign investors for its efficiency, came under attack on Friday at an international lawyers’ conference for being repressive and silencing dissent.

Thousands of International Bar Association (IBA) delegates began meeting on Sunday in Singapore, a country that the group’s president, Fernando Pombo of Spain, said has an “outstanding judiciary.”

But Timothy Cooper, head of Washington-based human rights group Worldrights, challenged that notion. He questioned why political defendants in the city-state had never won libel suits brought against them by government officials.

He also asked why permits for gatherings “are routinely denied” to political opponents of the government – and received applause from hundreds of the conference attendees.

It is illegal to hold a public gathering of five or more people in Singapore without a permit, meaning demonstrations seldom occur.

Chee Soon Juan, one of a few to challenge the ruling People’s Action Party, also drew strong applause when he told delegates about his arrest and imprisonment six times, mainly for speaking in public without a permit.

Chee, secretary general of the Singapore Democratic Party, and another opposition figure, lawyer J.B. Jeyaretnam, were declared bankrupt in recent years after failing to pay libel damages to members of the ruling party – effectively barring them from holding public office under Singapore law.

Addressing the gathering, Deputy Prime Minister S. Jayakumar said that if Singapore’s leaders did not vigorously defend their reputations against those who questioned their integrity, “an insidious creeping effect” could lead people to believe the allegations.

He noted that London’s Financial Times had on Wednesday unreservedly apologised “for having published something which suggested nepotism” in Singapore.

Chee took a break from a five-day long solo protest over Singapore’s ties with military-run Myanmar to attend the IBA meeting. He said police told him his protest was illegal.

“I have no doubt that I’ll be charged and convicted again,” he said.

In his earlier speech, Jayakumar said Singapore’s legal system allowed the country’s different ethnic groups to live peacefully together, while international commerce thrived.

“Internationally our legal system and judiciary have been held in high esteem by the World Bank as an example of how a former British colony has been able to maintain its integrity and efficiency,” he said.

Singapore’s influential founding prime minister Lee Kuan Yew earlier told the conference that other international groups have also given top ratings to the city-state’s legal framework.

Responding to Cooper’s comments, Jayakumar noted the city-state was densely populated and said “law and order considerations” are pre-eminent when permits for public gatherings are considered.

He said authorities are “particularly careful” about political gatherings and those based on race, language or religion.

The city-state has bitter memories of past racial incidents in its early years and clamps down hard on anyone inciting communal tensions.

“We are not saying that our answers are the best answers, but they are simply what has worked for us,” Jayakumar said.

Before leaving to resume his one-man protest, Chee urged the lawyers to heed the words of Myanmar’s detained pro-democracy leader.

“In the words of Aung San Suu Kyi, please, use your liberty to help promote ours,” he said.

“Mr Jayakumar, this one thing I tell you, the human spirit can only be suppressed, never crushed.”

***********

{FOI}-DPM to Chee: Don’t turn IBA meet into theatre on S’pore politics by Goh Chin Lian, Straits Times website, 19 Oct 2007

chee-jaya by ST
‘I want to thank the speakers…and Mr Jayakumar (left) for his very well-spun fairy tale’, Chee (right) said, and then proceeded to describe how he was sued for defamation and arrested several times for speaking without a permit. – PHOTO: ST

DEPUTY Prime Minister S Jayakumar on Friday accused Singapore Democratic Party’s Chee Soon Juan of turning an international meeting here into a theatre on Singapore politics, even as he responded to the opposition politician’s accusations of breaches in the law by the government.

And to a report detailing similar accusations, which SDP members distributed to delegates at the International Bar Association’s (IBA) symposium on the rule of law, Professor Jayakumar said it contained ‘half truths and complete untruths’.

He had opened the morning session at Suntec Convention Centre – the last major event of a week-long conference for about 4,000 legal practitioners from 120 countries – with a speech on how the rule of law is upheld in Singapore.

He was one of six speakers on the rule of law and the experience in Asia.

When the audience was invited to ask questions, Dr Chee took to the microphone.

‘I want to thank the speakers…and Mr Jayakumar for his very well-spun fairy tale’, he said, and then proceeded to describe how he was sued for defamation and arrested several times for speaking without a permit.

He claimed he had just come from a single person protest outside the Istana where he was approached by the police and told it was illegal.

‘Mr Jayakumar, will you tell the audience also when you talked about detention without trial, how members of the opposition were detained for 10, 20, 30 years?’ he said, naming other detainees like Chia Thye Poh and Francis Seow.

The session’s chairman, Mr Francis Neete, interrupted him at this point to let the minister respond, but Dr Chee said to let him finish what he wanted to say to the delegates.

‘I’m sure they would want to hear what the reality of Singapore is,’ he said, prompting applause from the audience.

Dr Chee then went on to say that he would gladly go to prison and remain bankrupt for the freedom of his country.

Quoting Myanmar pro-democracy leader Aung San Suu Kyi, he asked the delegates to ‘please use your liberty to help promote ours’.

Prof Jayakumar, who is also the Law Minister, replied that he would answer the question, ‘out of respect to the Chair, IBA and all the thousands of delegates who are attending’.

‘I say that because Mr Chee is a gentleman who vigorously campaigned for this conference to be cancelled and be boycotted.’

The DPM said he hoped that after spending six days here, the majority of the delegates would agree with the IBA’s decision to hold the conference here.

‘I would like or hope that the IBA proceedings do not get converted into a theatre of Singapore politics, because this is what Mr Chee Soon Juan is trying to do.’

‘He has the freedom of speech, but he has forgotten to tell some fundamental truths in many of the allegations that he has made both orally as well as in the publication that he has circulated.’

Referring to the eight-page report, he said: ‘If you want to persuade the members of the IBA, you have to tell them the complete truth.’

For example, the report gave the impression that in one court case, the Canadian courts had cast doubts on the integrity of Singapore courts.

‘But he doesn’t mention here that the courts in Canada from Supreme Court right up to the Ontario Court of Appeal threw out the allegation, and said that there is no reason to doubt the impartiality of the judges who heard the case in Singapore,’ said Professor Jayakumar.

The report also falsely claimed, he noted, that the Far Eastern Economic Review magazine was being banned here because it refused to apologise over a published interview with Dr Chee.

The session resumed after a break with a new panel of speakers, including National University of Singapore law professor Simon Tay, Workers’ Party chairman Sylvia Lim and Malaysian Bar Council Ambiga Sreenevasan.

At question time, more SDP leaders took to the microphone.

Dr Chee’s sister, Ms Chee Siok Chin, recounted how she was bankrupted as a result of defamation suits by Singapore’s leaders, and then asked how it came to be that the Malaysian Bar Council had no qualms speaking up about the rule of law in Malaysia.

SDP assistant secretary-general John Tan, who came after her, questioned the independence of the judiciary here.

Among the five other members of the audience who took to the microphone, was Mr M. Ravi, who introduced himself as a human rights lawyer who has defended opposition parties.

He defended the Chee siblings when they were sued by Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew and Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong for defamation.

Another person who spoke was Mr Timothy Cooper, executive director of US-based human rights advocacy Worldrights.

Both Mr Ravi and Mr Cooper also raised questions about what they saw as flaws in Singapore’s rule of law.

Mr Neete, IBA’s immediate past president, told The Straits Times he was not surprised that politicians had taken to the conference.

Similar incidents had occurred in previous conferences and the same could be expected next year’s conference in Buenos Aires, he said.

He quipped: ‘Politicians being politicians will have to have a forum.’

“Panties for Peace” Campaign Wins Wide Support Friday, Oct 19 2007 

by Violet Cho, The Irrawaddy, 18 Oct 2007

peacepanty by wackyjacThe “Panties for Peace” campaign aimed at Burma’s military regime is gaining momentum, with the establishment of a committee to drum up support in Thailand.

The campaign began on October 16, with women throughout the world sending packages to Burmese embassies containing panties. Burma’s superstitious generals, particularly junta chief Than Shwe, believe that contact with any item of women’s wear deprives them of their power.

“Panties for Peace” campaigns have sprung up in Australia, Europe, Singapore—and now Thailand, where a Lanna Action for Burma committee has been formed in Chiang Mai to support the feminine protest.

Ying Tzarm, a co-founder of Lanna Action for Burma, told The Irrawaddy that the campaign was aimed at undermining the superstitious beliefs of the military regime.

Liz Hilton, a supporter of the Lanna Action for Burma and a member of the Empower foundation, said that by sending underwear to the men of Burma’s overseas embassies women would be delivering a strong message to the regime.

“The SPDC is famous for its abuse of women, so this can be a very strong signal from women around the world supporting the women in Burma,” she said.

“Many feel there’s little we can do. It is like living next to domestic violence when we see the military government brutal crack down in Burma. We can hear that fighting in the next-door house or in the same village. We have tried to talk, we have tried to do many things. But we need to express our feelings.”

In another unusual popular protest action, people in Rangoon are hanging pictures of Than Shwe around the necks of stray dogs. It’s a very serious insult in Burma to associate anybody with a dog.

Graffiti anti-regime messages are also appearing on trains and buses in Rangoon. “Killer Than Shwe” is a popular slogan.

“The people of Burma are doing what they can inside [the country],” said Liz Hilton. “We should do whatever we can outside. Most of us are not politicians, we are not powerful people. But women do have the power of their panties—let’s use that.”

Singapore Squirms As Burmese Protest Friday, Oct 19 2007 

by Alex Au, Asia Times Online, 19 Oct 2007

“Police take a stern view against those who organize and participate in illegal assemblies or processions. It is an offense to do so without a permit.” This sharp warning was carried in the country’s national daily on September 27, 2007 in an attempt to warn off anyone intending to organize marches. The country was not Burma, but Singapore.

A month earlier, on August 25, 2007, 30 to 40 Burmese residents in Singapore had marched two kilometers down Orchard Road, the main shopping street, to a point near the City Hall. They did so to show solidarity with the then-nascent protests in Rangoon over the recent fuel-price hikes. “They just wore ordinary white T-shirts, carried no placards, and no one shouted slogans,” reported an observer. “It was entirely peaceful.” The point was to send pictures back to Burma to encourage their compatriots.

Barely 20 steps from the starting point, the group was intercepted by a police inspector and four or five officers videotaping the participants. The inspector “advised” the participants not to proceed, or else they might face charges. To underline the seriousness of the warning, ID particulars of 23 of the participants were recorded. Despite this, the march continued, only to encounter the same police officers about one kilometer further on, near the presidential palace. Another warning was given.

A week later, at the end of August, the 23 participants received letters from the police requiring them attend police interrogation over this “illegal procession”. They had to make signed statements, and were issued a warning not to participate in any such activities again. Said one of those who was called up, whose name has to be withheld for her own safety, “the police told us: ‘If you do it again, you will be deported immediately’.”

As protests intensified in Burma, with monks joining in and being beaten and arrested for their trouble, Singaporeans too were increasingly moved by events over there. University students began to organize, choosing October 4 to hold a mass event across four campuses.

The police were not far behind. At the Singapore Management University, a 7.30pm peace vigil was set to take place in the open deck on the ground floor of the library building. “At mid-afternoon, the police contacted the Dean of Students telling him that unless we had a permit, the Peace Vigil would be an illegal assembly,” said Mark Myo, one of the organizers. The event thus had to be moved indoors into the library.

Something similar happened at the Kent Ridge campus of the National University of Singapore. The campus newspaper, The Ridge, reported that “appeals were made to hold outdoor vigils”, but the proposal was rejected, “as it is not in keeping with the university culture and may not serve an academic purpose”. In the end, at Kent Ridge, the vigil didn’t take place at all.

The most contentious case could be the battle of wills that took place at the end of September between the Singapore Democratic Party (SDP) and the police. The SDP had set up a petition table outside the Myanmar embassy and invited people to come sign two petitions – one to Singapore’s prime minister, the other to the Myanmar ambassador. At one point over 200 people, Singaporeans and Burmese, showed up. They lit candles, stuck messages onto the embassy gates and stayed on peacefully as a gesture of solidarity.

Throughout, the police tried to tell people to leave, videotaping faces in an attempt to scare individuals off. “We advise you to leave; we are investigating this case,” repeated the officer-in-charge ad nauseum. Some left; others moved a little, but still hung around.

At the entrance to St Martin’s Drive, where the embassy was located, more policemen were deployed to prevent people from walking up the narrow road towards the embassy and the petition-signing area. A man named Wunna was among those who tried to enter. “The plainclothes policemen stationed there warned me not to proceed into the road, or else they would investigate,” he said. He decided not to risk it, and turned back.

By then, Singapore’s foreign minister, George Yeo, had already issued a statement on behalf of Asean “demand[ing] that the Myanmar government immediately desist from the use of violence against demonstrators.”

It would hardly do for the Singapore government to engage in similar behaviour. Even short of violence, prosecution and deportation would put them in the same moral basket as the Myanmar military junta.

It is an open secret that the Singapore government and many companies here happily do business with the Myanmar generals. As reported in the newspaper Today, on October 5, “Myanmar’s official data reports Singapore as its second-largest investor with over US$1.57 billion, mostly in the services sector.” Flowing in the other direction are funds connected with the regime, substantial amounts of which are believed to be parked in Singapore banks.

Moreover, the Myanmar generals regularly come to Singapore for medical treatment.

This cozy relationship may explain the fact that police surveillance of the 30,000 – 60,000 strong Burmese community in Singapore has been going on for a long time. Said Aung Naing: “Sometimes, we feel that they are tapping our phones. During one recent conversation with my husband, we heard a woman’s voice in the background.”

Aye Aye, a petite young woman with Burmese activist Aung San Suu Kyi’s face emblazoned on her T-shirt, recalled a police officer telling her once, “We keep records on you.”

Wunna added: “At events such as prayer sessions, birthday celebrations, and the annual water festival, we see police vans nearby.”

Intelligence officers regularly contact organizers of events to find out what they are up to. “Just before the birthday celebrations for Aung San Suu Kyi in June this year,” Wunna recalled, “the intelligence officer contacted one of the organizers with detailed questions about the agenda, what kinds of documents they were going to distribute, and so on.”

That reminded Aung Naing, an engineer with a master’s degree, “The same thing happened just prior to the water festival in April.”

The Burmese community uses a small street beside a Buddhist temple for this festival. Different groups park vehicles along this street, decorated as focal points for their celebrations.

“In 2006, our lorry had a big poster, four feet x six ft, of Aung San Suu Kyi on it. But this year, the police contacted us and told us not to put up her picture,” he said.

His wife chipped in: “We negotiated and thought we could to put up a smaller picture, three ft x five ft.”

But on that day itself, a monk from the temple told them the police had called with a warning that the picture had to be taken down within 30 minutes. “If not, they would come and arrest us,” she recalled the monk saying.

That was April, before the crisis in Burma broke out. Now, with the world’s attention focused on the plight of Burmese deprived of liberties, arresting them in Singapore may prove rather hard to do.

The Singapore government is caught in an acute dilemma. On the one hand, they have to make suitably outraged remarks about the crackdown against demonstrators in Burma; on the other hand, they do not want the Burmese community in Singapore to protest and inspire Singaporeans to take to the streets too. The Lee government’s draconian ban on any kind of street march or protest rally is central to its grip on power.

Another dilemma has to do with the transition that sooner or later will happen in Myanmar. Memories of what happened after the fall of Indonesia’s Suharto, with whom Singapore had been very cozy for decades, are still fresh. Singapore continues to suffer suspicion from the new democratic polity in Jakarta nine years after the dictator’s fall in 1998.

With the rapidly changing situation in Myanmar, Singapore has to walk a fine line between the generals and those arrayed against them.

The SDP’s agility in seizing the issue and championing the cause of the protestors presented another headache. The government would be aghast at the prospect of an opposition party burnishing its credentials as a result of its timely outspokenness.

The government’s response may well be Machiavellian. A few days after the standoff at the embassy, many in the Burmese community received a mysterious sms that warned them not to go to the Myanmar embassy to sign petitions but instead sign petitions at Peninsula Plaza where it was “more effective and safe”. Peninsula Plaza is the shopping mall that serves as the hub of social life for the Burmese community.

Thiha recalled, “We could not recognize the number. We don’t know who sent it.”

In his opinion, “the undercover police approached active members of the community to do a parallel petition.”

Despite that, Thiha said, “I appreciate that the Singapore police, at least, is corruption-free. But I want to suggest that they in turn should appreciate the situation in Burma, and our movement.”

Kyaw Swar, a geologist, thought Singapore should lighten up more. “There should be freedom of expression. Even if a country is small, rights should not be alienated from human beings.”

“They should not deal with the generals,” stressed Thiha, bringing up the subject of medical treatment for them. Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong was recently on CNN saying that offering the junta leaders medical treatment was only being humanitarian, in keeping with the Hippocratic oath.

“If Osama bin Laden needed medical treatment,” Thiha asked, “will Singapore allow him to come or not?”

Alex Au is an independent social and political commentator, freelance writer and blogger based in Singapore. He often speaks at public forums on politics, culture and gay issues.