Singapore’s Violations of Human Rights, Democracy and the Rule of Law Criticized by International Bar Association
By Rosalind Elphick
July 17, 2008 | Printer Friendly

The International Bar Association’s Human Rights Institute (IBAHRI), following its investigation of the rule of law, democracy and human rights in Singapore, has issued a report outlining its continuing concerns and recommendations. The paper, Prosperity versus individual rights? Human rights, democracy and the rule of law in Singapore, considers Singapore’s history and conception of human rights, and conducts an evaluation of Singapore’s standing in the international community. The report shows that Singapore’s rankings are “very low regarding its recognition and implementation of human rights and democracy”.

The report examines a range of human rights concerns, including freedom of expression (including the use of defamation legislation to hinder opposition activities and restrictions on the freedom of the press and the internet); the independence of the judiciary (including allegations of executive influence, the trends of the courts in defamation cases and the approach of the court in a specific case); freedom of assembly; and the role of the Singapore Law Society in promoting and discussing law reform.

The IBAHRI has found that the government falls short of standards outlined and accepted by the international community. The report highlights the view that “Singapore goes beyond recognized constraints”, and that provisions of the Constitution which allow the restriction of certain freedoms beyond these limits are “inconsistent with established customary international law and should be repealed”.

The report goes on to state that fundamental and universal human rights cannot be considered culturally specific; human rights, it states, are “universal and indivisible”. In its report, the IBAHRI calls on Singapore to implement the following recommendations:

Recommendation one: Singapore should ratify the [International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights] without reservations and implement its provisions at the earliest opportunity.

Recommendation two: Singapore should immediately bring its restrictions on free expression in line with recognised international customary law.

Recommendation three: Singapore should immediately abolish defamation as a criminal offence, or in the alternative and should abolish heavy sanctions for defamation offences; prohibit public officials from instituting criminal defamation; and review the existing defences to ensure they are in line with international standards.

Recommendation four: The Singapore Government should pass legislative limits on civil defamation pay-outs, and certainly on cases initiated by government officials.

Recommendation five: A defence of qualified privilege for comments made about government officials should be made available and enforced by the courts in appropriate cases.

Recommendation six: The Singapore Government should take steps to encourage, not discourage, opposition participation and debate.

Recommendation seven: Singapore Government officials should stop initiating defamation claims for criticisms made in the course of political debate.

Recommendation eight: The Singapore Government should increase the freedom of the press – both domestic and foreign – to report on political issues impacting on the people of Singapore.

Recommendation nine: The Newspaper and Printing Presses Act should be amended so as to ensure that there are checks and balances on the decision to restrict the circulation of publications under the Act.

Recommendation ten: The Newspaper and Printing Presses Act should be amended to allow reasonable comment on the domestic politics of Singapore by foreign publications.

Recommendation eleven: Singapore should remove personal responsibility for internet hosts for information published on their hosted sites or should clarify the limitations on material that may not be posted.

Recommendation twelve: Steps should be taken to ensure that internet bloggers are free to make reasonable statements in the public interest.

Recommendation thirteen: Security of tenure should be granted to all judges.

Recommendation fourteen: Transfer of judges between executive and judicial roles should be abolished.

Recommendation fifteen: The situations in which demonstrations may take place should be expanded to include all peaceful assemblies.

Recommendation sixteen: Limitations on penalties for peaceful assembly should be introduced as a matter of urgency.

Recommendation seventeen: The Singapore Government should respect the right of the Singapore Law Society to engage in debate on law reform and should immediately repeal the prohibition on the Singapore Law Society commenting on legislation.

Recommendation eighteen: The Singapore Law Society should ensure that it is actively participating in law reform debates on a wide range of issues, as that is its responsibility as a law society.

The full report can be found at:
http://www.ibanet.org/images/downloads/07_2008_July_Report_Singapore-Prosperity_versus_individual_rights.pdf