Reply to OHCHR News Release dated 29 January 2019

Mr David Kaye 
Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression 

Mr Michel Forst 
Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights defenders 

Mr Clément Nyaletsossi Voule
Special Rapporteur on the rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and of association

Dear Mr Kaye, Mr Forst and Mr Voule,

I refer to the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights press release entitled “Singapore must ensure fundamental rights for all after conviction of Jolovan Wham, say UN experts” issued in your names on 29 January 2019.  As the cases involving Mr Jolovan Wham are still before the Court, I am not in a position to comment on the specifics of the cases.  Nonetheless, I would like to clarify some inaccurate and misleading statements in the press release, some of which were already addressed in Singapore’s letter to Mr Kaye and Mr Forst on 7 March 2018.   

Singapore welcomes vibrant and responsible public discourse because it encourages greater civic participation by our citizens. Singapore fully respects the fundamental human rights as enshrined in the UN Charter and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) and our legislation and law enforcement measures are in full conformity with our international law obligations. Our Constitution protects the rights to freedom of speech and expression and freedom of peaceful assembly and association. The UDHR and international law recognise that these rights are not unqualified. Singapore holds the view that these rights must be exercised responsibly in accordance with the rule of law, taking into account competing rights and interests. In this regard, Singapore’s approach to human rights, which takes into account our unique national circumstances, has yielded positive outcomes for our people which have been recognised internationally. For example, we are consistently ranked highly in international indices and indicators (e.g. we were ranked 1st on the World Bank’s Human Capital Index and 9th on the UN’s Human Development Index in 2018.) 
           

Public Order Act

Singapore’s Public Order Act (POA) ensures adequate space for the individual’s rights of political expression whilst preserving public order in our multi-racial, multi-religious and densely populated small city state.  There are proper avenues for Singaporeans to express their views in public and to seek redress.  However, it is a criminal offence under the POA to organise or participate in a public assembly without a Police permit. Mr Wham had been given advice and notice by the Police of the lawful means to go about organising public assemblies but he continued to organise public assemblies without Police permits. During subsequent investigations, Mr Wham also refused to sign his statements to the Police as is required by law. As a result, Mr Wham was charged in Court for organising public assemblies without a permit, vandalism, and for refusing to sign his statements to the Police.  He was convicted on 3 January 2019 for organising an indoor public assembly involving a foreign speaker without a Police permit and for refusing to sign his statement to the Police during investigations into the offence.  He was sentenced on 21 February 2019 to a fine of S$3200.  His other charges are pending Court proceedings.  The law applies equally to all and no one is above it.  Social activism cannot be used as a reason to absolve a person who has broken the law.    

Contempt of Court

           Contrary to the assertions in the press release, “expressing an opinion about Singapore’s judiciary” is not a criminal offence.

Singapore law does not protect judges from fair criticism.  Judicial decisions are routinely criticised, sometimes severely, without violating the law. However, Singapore views confidence in our judiciary and its high standing as the bedrock of the rule of law, and as public goods that are worth defending vigorously.  Unfounded and irresponsible attacks on the judiciary that call into question their independence and integrity undermine the rule of law and must be robustly countered.

Yours sincerely,

FOO KOK JWEE
AMBASSADOR AND PERMANENT REPRESENTATIVE