Uwazi

The Infocomm Media Development Authority (IMDA) has suspended the class licence of The Online Citizen (TOC) to run its website and its social media channels.

In a statement on Tuesday (Sept 14), IMDA said the socio-political website has repeatedly failed to comply with its legal obligation to declare all sources of funding since around the middle of last year.

TOC will be required to stop posting content on its website and social media channels immediately and disable them by 3pm on Thursday, IMDA said.

It added that if TOC continues to operate while in breach of the requirements, it may then take steps to block access to TOC in Singapore.

If TOC “does not provide further information to bring it into full compliance”, its class licence could be cancelled by Sept 28, said IMDA, adding that TOC’s officers may also be held liable for criminal offences under the Broadcasting Act.

“There is no reason for TOC not to comply, as other registered Internet content providers provide this information in order to be transparent about their sources of funding,” said IMDA.

TOC is one of two websites that are currently classified as registered Internet content providers (ICPs) by IMDA. The other is The Independent Singapore.

Past websites that had registered as ICPs include Six-Six News and The Middle Ground, both of which are no longer in operation.

Such websites, which provide content focused on political issues in Singapore and engage in online promotion or discussion of these issues, are required to declare their sources of funding.

"This is to prevent such sites from being controlled by foreign actors, or coming under the influence of foreign entities or funding, and to ensure that there is no foreign influence in domestic politics," IMDA said.

This requirement has been in place since 2013.

Mainstream news websites are not considered ICPs as they are regulated separately under the Broadcasting Act and the Newspaper and Printing Presses Act.

Under the regulations for ICPs, details on the sources of all funding must be declared by default and no foreign funding is allowed.

While subscription and advertising revenue from foreign sources are allowed if there is a clear commercial purpose, the sources must be declared and identified. IMDA said such sources of funding must not be used as a "loophole for foreign influence and funding".

It noted that TOC had offered a subscription framework under which those who paid a $120 yearly fee could have TOC write articles on a specified topic without having to declare their identity.

This is tantamount to allowing subscribers to commission content, which would require the full disclosure of the identity of the source, IMDA noted.

“This is a cause for concern as foreign actors can potentially use this mechanism to pay TOC to write articles that influence domestic politics,” it added.

IMDA said the legal entity TOC Pte Ltd first registered as an ICP in 2018 and declared its funding sources in accordance with the requirements. The Straits Times understands that the TOC website was operated by a different legal entity before 2018.

However, since 2019, TOC has not fully complied with this obligation, IMDA said.

The authority noted that TOC had failed to verify a donor and to clarify discrepancies in its foreign advertising revenue in its 2019 declaration, for which it was issued a warning on May 4 this year.

"For its 2020 declaration, TOC repeatedly failed to declare all its funding sources despite multiple reminders and extensions," IMDA said.

"TOC had also informed IMDA that it does not intend to comply with its obligations under the law."

TOC was then given a final opportunity to explain its non-compliance by Monday.

In its response to IMDA on Monday, TOC offered to make a declaration that it was not receiving foreign funding on the condition that the IMDA agrees not to seek further clarifications on its subscription framework and funding sources, the authority said.

But the requirement for TOC and other ICPs to declare their sources of funding is a legal one, and is not a matter for negotiation, said IMDA. It, therefore, rejected TOC's offer.

In a letter to IMDA posted on his Facebook page on Monday, lawyer Lim Tean of Carson Law Chambers, who represents TOC, said the discrepancies were "simple accounting mistakes".

He also accused IMDA of hypocrisy and inconsistency for allowing the Critical Spectator website and Facebook page to comment on Singapore affairs and politics despite it being run by a foreign commentator, Polish national Michael Petraeus.

Mr Lim added that TOC intends to challenge the suspension of its class licence by way of a judicial review.

Singapore's high court ordered two bloggers to pay Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong a combined S$210,000 ($155,994) in damages on Wednesday, over an article about the home of his late father and the city-state's modern-day founder, Lee Kuan Yew.

The premier sued writer Rubaashini Shunmuganathan and editor Xu Yuan Chen, also known as Terry Xu, over an August 2019 article on The Online Citizen (TOC) that included references to a Lee family disagreement about what to do with the property.

Judge Audrey Lim said the article "impugned Lee's reputation and character" by alleging he was dishonest.

"This struck at the heart of Lee's personal integrity and could severely undermine his credibility, not just personally but also as the prime minister, and call into question his fitness to govern with integrity," Lim said in a written judgement.

Xu, a Singaporean, and Malaysian Rubaashini were ordered to pay Lee S$210,000 and S$160,000 respectively. The judge, however, asked them to jointly pay S$160,000 in damages, as the lawsuits concerned the same defamatory article.

Rubaashini did not immediately respond to a request for comment. Xu on his social media said he was disappointed with the judgement and was assessing next steps he could take, such as an appeal.

Xu has also set up crowdfunding for the case, a move taken separately in April by an activist and a financial advisor, both of whom Lee had successfully sued for defamation.

Lee appeared in court in the case involving TOC in May, during which he said "sensational allegations" had been made.

His press secretary in a statement on Wednesday said the damages awarded would be donated to charity.

Senior figures in the ruling People's Action Party, including Lee Kuan Yew, have also sued foreign media and political opponents for defamation, calling it defence of their reputations.

Some activists, including the New York-based Human Rights Watch, say such moves are stifling freedom of speech and political opposition.

Online sites that receive funding from and hire foreigners can easily be used to advance foreign interests, Home Affairs Minister K Shanmugam said on Wednesday (Sept 25).

He highlighted sociopolitical website The Online Citizen (TOC) as an example, noting that it received support from and employs foreigners — including Malaysians — who write “almost exclusively negative articles” on social and political matters in Singapore.

Speaking at an S Rajaratnam School of International Studies (RSIS) conference on foreign-interference tactics and countermeasures on Wednesday (Sept 25), Mr Shanmugam pointed out that the site was responsible for an article at the heart of a defamation lawsuit brought by Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong.

Mr Lee’s lawyers had described content in the article as false, including allegations that Mr Lee had misled his late father into thinking the Government had gazetted their Oxley Road family home.

Mr Shanmugam said he was not commenting on the legal merits of the article and only that it was written by a Malaysian named Rubaashini Shunmuganathan, who is said to reside in Shah Alam, Selangor.

She was also behind another article urging Singaporean civil servants to follow the example of their counterparts in Hong Kong, which has been in the grip of months of protests. Noting that the writer has written many other articles to try to influence views in Singapore, Mr Shanmugam said this raised questions of who controls and pays her, and what purposes her work serves.Mr Shanmugam, who was speaking at the Parkroyal hotel on Beach Road, pointed out that most readers would assume that a Singaporean contributor was behind TOC’s articles.Only five out of 14 administrators of the website, which is helmed by chief editor Terry Xu, are in Singapore, he pointed out.

Nine are based elsewhere, including four in Malaysia and two in Indonesia.

“We don’t know who they are. Are they Singaporeans? Are they foreigners?” said Mr Shanmugam, who is also the Law Minister.

He noted that these online sites are “only interested to get eyeballs” and have been used by other countries to attack and deepen divisions. Responding to Mr Shanmugam in an article published on TOC, Mr Xu said: “Nothing goes unvetted by me, a Singaporean who has served his National Service and (is) held responsible by the Ministry of Communications and Information as the registered person in charge.” He added that there is “no law against hiring (a) person of foreign nationality” and TOC “has not used (or) received any foreign funding”.

ACTIVISTS WHO MET DR MAHATHIR

In another example cited by Mr Shanmugam, historian Thum Ping Tjin, political dissident Tan Wah Piow, freelance journalist Kirsten Han, civil-rights activist Jolovan Wham and graphic novelist Sonny Liew met Malaysian Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad in Kuala Lumpur last year.

They urged the Malaysian leader to bring democracy to Singapore and other countries, with Dr Thum saying Singapore should be a part of Malaysia and celebrate independence on Malaysia Day on Sept 16, said Mr Shanmugam.

In an email to TODAY, Ms Han maintained that they never urged Dr Mahathir to bring democracy to Singapore and other countries. Instead, Dr Thum had asked Dr Mahathir to “take leadership in South-east Asia for the promotion of democracy, human rights, freedom of expression and freedom of information”, she said. “We talked very little about Singapore and asked him questions about Malaysia, given the huge political shift (there)."

Mr Shanmugam added that Ms Han and Dr Thum also set up New Naratif, a self-described movement for democracy and freedom of expression in the region, which receives foreign funds.

“Ms Han, on video, has said that Singapore has failed compared with Hong Kong, because 500,000 people don’t go on the streets to march, unlike (in) Hong Kong. And she wants to change that through classes run by New Naratif,” he said.

“(This) will seem ridiculous on so many levels, but leave that aside because everyone is entitled to their views, however reasonable or unreasonable.”

But he asked: “Should foreign contributions be received in order to push these lines?”

Ms Han noted that she made the comments cited by Mr Shanmugam in 2016, when New Naratif — which was set up in 2017 — did not exist.

In the video, which was recorded at a forum on activism and civil disobedience, Ms Han had said: “If you measure Singapore against Hong Kong and think that the goal that we want is to have 500,000 people in the streets, then, yes, Singapore fails because we do not get 500,000 people in the streets. But if the goal that we want, being at such an early stage, is growing discussion, growing pushback, growing networks and activism and civil society, then these are things that we can achieve and I would argue are actually happening already."

She added that it was important to acknowledge these efforts because “a social movement is not 500,000 (but) all the work that goes into potentially one day having 500,000 people in the streets”.

On Wednesday, Ms Han said that throughout her speech in the video, she had argued for "context" and highlighted "legitimate, non-violent ways for people to participate, such as organising parliamentary petitions or taking part in consultations". “Ideally, these processes will actually work and then we won’t ever need to consider a day when the situation is so desperate we need 500,000 people in the streets, which I think would be the best result for everyone involved," she said.

While the New Naratif has conducted "democracy classroom" sessions on topics such as public order and protest, and fake news, Ms Han noted that she did not say she would "hold classes to change the fact that Singapore doesn't have 500,000 people in the streets".

LAWS NEEDED

Mr Shanmugam reiterated that legislation was necessary and the state cannot take a hands-off approach because foreign interference in Singapore’s affairs is “an issue of sovereignty and national security”.

Laws must be able to counteract foreign interference, including giving the Government powers to make targeted, “surgical” interventions to investigate and respond quickly to hostile information campaigns.

The authorities must also have access to information to investigate the provenance of content, ascertain the extent to which it is being influenced by foreign parties and respond appropriately.

“The serious impact of hostile information campaigns on the social fabric, political sovereignty, peace, stability and national security has to be met head-on by states, working with technology companies as partners,” he said.

Other countries have done this, including France, which has introduced an information-manipulation law that mandates transparency over social-media platforms’ algorithms and election advertising.

It also allows the French national broadcasting agency to suspend television channels controlled or influenced by a foreign state.

Stressing that foreign interference is an “age-old threat” going back thousands of years, Mr Shanmugam said: “Governments have to lead from the front and we need to ensure we have the right tools to fight this.”

Civil rights activist Jolovan Wham was fined a total of $8,000 on Monday (Feb 15) after he pleaded guilty to three charges over an illegal public assembly held on MRT trains more than three years ago.

The gathering of nine people was held to commemorate the 30th anniversary of Operation Spectrum - an internal security operation in 1987 that ended with the detention of 22 activists in what the Government called a Marxist conspiracy.

During their rides on northbound and southbound trains, which went on for about two hours on June 3, 2017, the protesters put on blindfolds fashioned from trash bags and held up copies of a book about the operation.

Wham and another protester also placed sheets of paper, printed with messages protesting the detentions, on their laps.

He later uploaded photographs of the gathering in social media posts.

Wham, 41, was fined $4,500 for organising the assembly without a permit, $1,000 for vandalising a train by pasting two sheets of paper with printed messages onto a panel, and $2,500 for refusing to sign a statement he gave to the police on the case.

He told the court through his lawyers from Eugene Thuraisingam LLP that he intends to pay the $2,500 fine but will go to jail in lieu of paying the fines for the illegal assembly and vandalism charges.

He started serving the default term, totalling 22 days, immediately. Stern warnings were issued to the other protesters.

This is Wham's second conviction for organising a public assembly without a permit and for refusing to sign his police statement.

In 2019, he was fined a total of $3,200 over an indoor event he organised in 2016 that featured Hong Kong activist Joshua Wong delivering a speech via a video call.

On Monday, district judge Marvin Bay noted in his sentencing remarks that there was a degree of escalation from Wham's previous offence.

"The escalation is pronounced in the prolonged nature of his offending of some two hours, which involved the described activities on a number of MRT trains on different lines," said the judge.

Judge Bay said while there was largely no "demonstration of belligerence or overt antagonism" on the part of the protesters, their actions would have caused "confusion, consternation and possibly a degree of anxiety among MRT commuters".

However, the judge added: "I am mindful that the protesters did remove their signs, did not cause damage to property and left no mark other than their transient presence (on the train)."

Prosecutors had sought a total fine of at least $9,500, arguing that Wham's "recalcitrance and continued disobedience of the law must be met with a sufficiently deterrent sentence".

In written submissions, deputy public prosecutors Ng Yiwen and Dillon Kok said the use of MRT trains could have caused public order issues. "Such public facilities are not meant to cater to the accused's mode of civil disobedience and social media publicity stunts," they said.

Three people were arrested for taking part in a public assembly without a permit outside the Ministry of Education (MOE) headquarters in Buona Vista on Tuesday (Jan 26), police said in a statement.

The police added that the trio, whom they did not name but said were aged between 19 and 32, were released on bail at about 10pm.

Investigations are ongoing.

The three were among a group of five people who allegedly staged a protest outside the building at about 5pm on Tuesday, carrying placards stating "#FIX SCHOOLS NOT STUDENTS", "WHY ARE WE NOT IN YOUR SEX ED", "HOW CAN WE GET A's WHEN YOUR CARE FOR US IS AN F", "trans students will NOT be erased" and "trans students deserve access to HEALTHCARE & SUPPORT".

The police said that when officers arrived at the scene, only three individuals remained.

They have been identified by activists as Elijah Tay, Lune Loh and Kokila Annamalai.

They were warned to cease their activities, as they were liable for an offence, but they ignored the police's warning and continued with their activities, police said.

"The group was then issued with a 'Move-on' direction under Section 36 of the Public Order Act and were told that they would be arrested if they failed to adhere to the direction," said the police.

"The three refused to comply despite the police's repeated warnings, and were arrested under the Public Order Act at around 5.35pm," police added.

They said that five placards, two multi-coloured flags and a blue bag were seized in relation to the case.

The protesters had, at around the time of their gathering, issued a statement to the media saying they were a group of students and supporters calling on MOE to end discrimination against LGBTQ - lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and queer - students in schools, adding that it is a longstanding issue.

The protest comes after a transgender pre-university student diagnosed with gender dysphoria said in a Reddit post this month that the MOE had blocked her from getting hormonal treatment.

The MOE had said this was not true, as it was not in a position to interfere with any medical treatment, which is a matter for the student's family to decide on.

In their statement, the police said that organising or participating in a public assembly without a police permit is illegal and constitutes an offence under the Public Order Act.

Civil rights activist Jolovan Wham Kwok Han was charged in a district court yesterday with two offences under the Public Order Act.

The 40-year-old Singaporean, who is the former executive director of migrant worker advocacy group Humanitarian Organisation for Migration Economics, had allegedly taken part in an assembly at the steps to the main entrance of the former State Courts building in Havelock Square around 9am on Dec 13, 2018.

He is said to have demonstrated support for the action of Xu Yuanchen, better known as Terry Xu, 38, the editor of sociopolitical website The Online Citizen (TOC), and TOC contributor Daniel De Costa Augustin, 37, by holding up a piece of paper with the words - "Drop the charges against Terry Xu and Daniel De Costa".

According to court documents, Wham had a photograph taken of himself demonstrating around the same time the pair were to be charged in court that day.

Xu and De Costa were both charged on Dec 13, 2018, with criminal defamation for allegedly defaming members of the Singapore Cabinet in a letter published on the TOC website. Their cases are still pending.

In the other charge, Wham is accused of taking part in a public assembly without a permit in the vicinity of Toa Payoh Central Community Club and Toa Payoh Neighbourhood Police Centre.

Around 1pm on March 28 this year, he is said to have held up a piece of cardboard with a smiley face drawn on it.

Court documents state it was to demonstrate his support for Nguyen Nhat Minh, who is said to have a similar snapshot captured at the same location on March 22.

In the photo, Minh allegedly held up a piece of cardboard with the words - "SG is better than [email protected]".

There was no mention of Minh's case in court documents seen by The Straits Times.

With the two cases, Wham is facing seven charges in all. "Among others, he was charged in 2017 with organising a public assembly without a permit on MRT trains... He allegedly did so to commemorate the 30th anniversary of Operation Spectrum - an internal security operation that saw 22 activists arrested in 1987 in what the Government called a Marxist plot aimed at overthrowing it."

Among others, he was charged in 2017 with organising a public assembly without a permit on MRT trains along the North-South Line on June 3 that year.

He allegedly did so to commemorate the 30th anniversary of Operation Spectrum - an internal security operation that saw 22 activists arrested in 1987 in what the Government called a Marxist plot aimed at overthrowing it.

Wham's bail was set at $15,000 yesterday and his pre-trial conference will be held on Friday.

For taking part in a public assembly without a permit, an offender can be fined up to $5,000.

Lawyer M Ravi is being investigated for criminal defamation in relation to a Facebook post alleging that lawyer Mr Eugene Thuraisingam had told him that Law Minister K Shanmugam has said he “wields influence over the Chief Justice”, the police said on Saturday (Nov 7).

“The Public Prosecutor has issued an order pursuant to Section 16(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code for the police to investigate into the offence,” they said in a news release.

Mr Ravi's Facebook post on Nov 6 alleged that Mr Thuraisingam had told him that Mr Shanmugam had said he “wields influence over the Chief Justice” and “calls the shot and controlls (sic) Sundaresh Menon”.

Mr Thuraisingam wrote a letter to Minister Shanmugam on the same day Mr Ravi's Facebook post was published, stating that "[t]here is absolutely no truth whatsoever" to the allegations, the police said.

Mr Thuraisingam also posted a copy of the letter on his Facebook page, referring to Mr Ravi's post as "false and completely untrue".

According to Mr Thuraisingam, Mr Ravi had made similar allegations in a Facebook post published on Jun 12, 2017.

Mr Thuraisingam had then clarified with Mr Shanmugam on Jun 13, 2017 that Mr Ravi’s allegations were false. No police action was taken in that incident.

The trial for Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong's defamation suit against writer and financial adviser Leong Sze Hian opened on Tuesday (Oct 6).

The trial is set to run for the rest of the week before Justice Aedit Abdullah, with Mr Lee represented by Senior Counsel Davinder Singh and a team of lawyers, and opposition politician Lim Tean representing Mr Leong.

Mr Lee, 68, sued Mr Leong in late 2018 over a public Facebook post the latter shared on his page on Nov 7, 2018, containing a link to an article by Malaysian website The Coverage.

The article alleged that Mr Lee had helped former Malaysian prime minister Najib Razak launder money in relation to scandal-hit Malaysian state fund 1Malaysia Development Berhad (1MDB).

Mr Lee's lawyers said the post contained "false and baseless" allegations that were "highly defamatory", including a purportedly libellous allegation that Mr Lee was "complicit in criminal activity relating to 1MDB".

Mr Leong, 66, said in December 2018 that he had complied with a notice from the Info-communications Media Development Authority on Nov 10 to take down the offending post, adding that he had "merely shared" the article with no comments.

After the suit was filed, Mr Leong's lawyer filed a counterclaim alleging that Mr Lee's libel suit was an abuse of court, but this was thrown out by the High Court and later by the Court of Appeal.

The apex court ordered Mr Leong to pay the Prime Minister costs of S$20,000 in September last year, after reiterating that the argument of abuse of court was not part of the law of Singapore and that a plaintiff has the right to choose who to sue for defamation.

Mr Lee arrived by car shortly past 9.30am on Tuesday, in a grey suit and a pale green tie. He waved to the people in the public gallery when he entered the courtroom. There is a limit of 20 people because of COVID-19 safe distancing measures.

Mr Lim and Mr Leong gave remarks to the media outside the Supreme Court before entering at about 9.45am, with Mr Leong saying he was armed only with the "sword of truth".

Members of the public queued for tickets to the public gallery from as early as 5.30am, and tickets were issued by 7am.

The trial comes after Mr Leong's lawyer was arrested on Friday (2 Oct)for alleged offences of criminal breach of trust and stalking.

He was released later that day.

Activist Jolovan Wham started serving a 10-day jail sentence on Friday (Aug 21) for organising an indoor event four years ago without a police permit.

The event was held in November 2016 at The Agora in Sin Ming Lane and was entitled Civil Disobedience And Social Movements. One of the speakers — albeit online — was Hong Kong dissident Joshua Wong. The others included activists Kirsten Han and Seelan Pelay.

Wham, who champions migrant worker rights, was convicted under the Public Order Act in 2019. He has not paid the S$2,000 fine and has chosen to go to jail.

This is the second time this year he will spend time in prison. On March 31, he served a one-week sentence for criticising the Judiciary rather than pay a S$5,000 fine.

On Thursday (Aug 20), he tweeted that his appeal on the indoor event had been dismissed.

On Friday, he posted photos with some friends who “came to see me off”, adding that he would “make the best of the situation to learn more about prison life while I’m inside”.

Wham also published on his Facebook and Twitter accounts a letter he had written to Mr Desmond Chin, the Commissioner of Prisons, to which he had received no reply.

He had recounted to Mr Chin the time he spent in Changi Prison earlier in the year and had made a request. “During my time there, I was confined to the cell for the entire duration of my sentence. Ordinarily, yard time would have been provided for inmates, but because of Covid, it was removed to prevent the spread of the virus. “Being confined for 24 hours in a small cell is quite inhumane. I am wondering it would be possible for the prison authorities to arrange staggered yard time for all inmates, while observing safe distancing. It should be possible to have yard time which is safe for everyone. I had raised this to the prison authorities during the time I was there but they said it was not possible. “Confining people for two weeks is cruel. Even if yard time was not permitted, even the opportunity to sit outside the cell and look at something else other than the 4 walls of the cell is a welcome relief. “I expect to be sentenced soon for another offence and will be serving time in prison once again. I would appreciate it if the prison authorities could look into this matter. Thank you for your time.”

When is a photo a protest and a piece of cardboard a threat? Social worker and civil rights advocate Jolovan Wham will find out as he is now under formal police investigation over a photo of him holding a smiley face in public.

Wham said Wednesday that he has been ordered to report to Tanglin police, around two months after he took the photo in a show of solidarity with two youths under separate probes for photos they took of themselves demanding climate action.

�About 2 months ago, I held up a placard at Toa Payoh Central, took this picture and left immediately after. I�ve now received a letter that I�ve violated the Public Order Act and will have to be at Tanglin police division this Sunday at 2pm,� Wham wrote on Twitter.

�I did it in response to someone in sg who got investigated by the police for participating in a climate strike,� he added in another tweet today.

In response to Coconuts Singapore�s inquiries, the police said they were unable to comment further on the matter as it is the subject of an ongoing investigation.

On March 28, Wham posted a photo of himself with the smiley face online. It was taken outside the Toa Payoh Central Community Club, around the same spot where one of the climate activists had taken a photo.

It is illegal to hold public demonstrations without a permit in Singapore, even if it is just a silent protest involving one person. And the only public place Singaporeans have been granted a permit to do so is the Speaker�s Corner in Hong Lim Park.

Police said in April that they were investigating a 20-year-old man and an 18-year-old woman under the Public Order Act after photos of them posing in public with signs calling for climate action were posted online.

They were said to be founders of �fridays4futuresg,� a name that appears to be borrowed from a similarly named campaign by famed Swedish environment activist Greta Thunberg.

If convicted for his act of postmodern civil disobedience, Wham faces a S$3,000 fine.

In 2018, artist Seelan Palay was jailed two weeks after refusing to pay a fine after being convicted of an unlawful procession. He had walked from Hong Lim Park to the Parliament House while holding a mirror.

Youths around the world have joined Swedish activist Greta Thunberg in taking their demands for climate action online due to the virus outbreak.

Unfortunately, two in Singapore may have found themselves on the wrong side of the law for publicly campaigning locally for the famed Fridays For Future movement. Police told reporters yesterday they are investigating a 20-year-old man and 18-year-old woman under the Public Order Act after photos of them posing in public with signs calling for climate action were posted online.

�I was informed that some people interpreted this as a challenge to authority,� the man, known on Instagram as @Menhguin, wrote yesterday after the police statement was released to the press.

No charges have yet been filed against the pair. @Menhguin said it was important that those who risk to lose yet are unable to vote to express themselves.

�@Fridaysforfuture in countless other countries comprises peaceful student demonstrations to express support for climate action. Students cannot vote, but their generation will be the most affected by climate change,� he said, adding that he had spent 10 hours at the police station. Singaporeans need to be at least 21 to vote.

It is illegal to hold public demonstrations without a permit in Singapore, even if it is just a silent protest involving one person. And the only public place Singaporeans have been granted a permit to do so is the Speaker�s Corner in Hong Lim Park.

For neither obtaining a permit nor demonstrating at the designated location, the duo face S$3,000 fines each if found guilty.

Photos showed that the man standing in front of the Toa Payoh Community Club and a police station holding a sign that read �SG is better than oil @fridays4futuresg.�

The woman was seen near the office of American petrochemical company ExxonMobil in Harbourfront holding signs reading �Planet over profit,� �School strike 4 climate,� and �ExxonMobil kills kittens & puppies.�

The woman, who posts to Instagram as @Jminsrus, has made no comment on her account since the police released the statement but shared the @Menhguin�s post in a story.

According to the police, the incidents happened March 13 and 22, the same time Thunberg began calling on people around the world to go on a �digital strike� since protesting in the streets was no longer feasible due to the ongoing coronavirus pandemic.

As part of the online strike, Thunberg called on people to publish photos of themselves holding signs with the hashtag #ClimateStrikeOnline, some of which she would then repost.

But instead of joining the online protest by using the same hashtag, the duo borrowed the campaign name to create separate Instagram and Twitter accounts called @Fridays4Futuresg and @F4Fsg, respectively, and calling on people to post similar photos with the hashtag #climatestrikesg.

The Twitter account has been set to private while the Instagram account has gone dark.

The man did not address why the duo had decided to create an offshoot of Thunberg�s campaign.

Last month, Thunberg reportedly applied to trademark her name and �Fridays For Future� to stop people from impersonating her or capitalizing on the movement�s name.

The Observatory has been informed by reliable sources about the sentencing of Mr. Jolovan Wham, social worker, human rights advocate, and former Executive Director of the NGO Humanitarian Organisation for Migration Economics (HOME) [1].

According to the information received, on March 16, 2020, Singapore’s Court of Appeal upheld the High Court’s judgement issued on April 29, 2019, which sentenced Mr. Jolovan Wham to S$5,000 (around 3,290 Euros) or one week of prison, in case he could not pay the fine. In addition, the Court of Appeal ordered Mr. Jolovan Wham to remove his Facebook post in which he made comments about the independence of the Singaporean and Malaysian courts (see background information).

The Observatory condemns the sentencing and ongoing judicial harassment against Mr. Jolovan Wham, which seem to be only aimed at punishing him for his legitimate human rights activities and for the exercise of his right to freedom of opinion and expression. The Observatory calls on the authorities of Singapore to put an immediate end to the harassment against Mr. Jolovan Wham.

Background information:

On October 9, 2018, the Singapore High Court found Mr. Jolovan Wham guilty of violating Article 3 (1) (a) of the 2016 Administration of Justice (Protection) Act (“scandalising the court”). Mr. Jolovan Wham’s prosecution and conviction stemmed from one of his Facebook posts published on April 27, 2018, in which he shared a news story about a constitutional challenge against Malaysia’s Anti-Fake News Act and commented that Malaysian judges were “more independent than Singapore’s for cases with political implication”. The Attorney-General’s Chambers (AGC) reasoned that the post “did not constitute fair criticism of the court” and that it “posed a risk that public confidence in the administration of justice would be undermined”. Mr. Jolovan Wham’s sentencing hearing was first set for November 7, 2018 and postponed several times. Article 3 (1) (a) of the Administration of Justice (Protection) Act provides for up to three years in jail or a fine of S$100,000 (around 62,740 Euros), or both.

This was the first conviction for “scandalising the court” under the 2016 Administration of Justice (Protection) Act, which came into effect on October 1, 2017. This crime is defined as “Any person who scandalises the court by intentionally publishing any matter or doing any act that —(i) imputes improper motives to or impugns the integrity, propriety or impartiality of any court; and (ii) poses a risk that public confidence in the administration of justice would be undermined”.

During a hearing on March 21, 2019, the Prosecutor asked the High Court to sentence Mr. Jolovan Wham to a fine of between S$10,000 (around 6,580 Euros) and S$15,000 (around 9,870 Euros).

On April 29, 2019, the Singapore High Court imposed on Mr. Jolovan Wham a fine of S$5,000 (around 3,290 Euros) following his conviction on charges of scandalising the court. Mr. Jolovan Wham was also required to pay S$5,000 in legal expenses to the Prosecutor and S$2997.82 (around 1,973 Euros) in disbursements to the Attorney’s General Chambers. Mr. Wham appealed the sentence.

Six people, including activist Han Hui Hui and blogger Roy Ngerng Yi Ling, who took part in a Hong Lim Park protest last month which disrupted a charity carnival held in an adjacent lawn, were charged on Monday the 27th October for public nuisance. Han, 23, and Ngerng, 33, were additionally charged with allegedly organising a demonstration without approval. The duo appeared in court dressed in all-white: Ngerng in a white long-sleeved shirt and pants, and Han in an all-white outfit paired with white spectacles and a white hairband. The four other accused - who each face a charge of public nuisance - are Low Wai Choo, 54; Chua Siew Leng, 42; Goh Aik Huat, 41; and Koh Yew Beng, 59. There was no immediate information available about their occupations. The six are accused of allegedly disrupting a YMCA charity carnival on Sept 27, held at the same time as their Return Our CPF protest rally, by marching around the general vicinity of the carnival, shouting loudly, chanting slogans, waving flags, holding placards, blowing whistles loudly and beating drums "in furtherance of the common intention ... to disrupt the YMCA event". The six are represented by lawyer M Ravi, who requested for more information to be shared by the prosecution via a pre-trial criminal case management system. This is where the defence and prosecution meet without a judge present, to discuss their cases frankly and in private. Public Prosecutor John Lu had no objection to Ravi's request and the case has been adjourned till Nov 24 for a pre-trial conference on Nov 24. In court on Monday, the six accused appeared composed, and chatted among themselves at times. A group of about 10 friends and supporters watched proceedings from the public gallery. Ravi told reporters afterwards that his clients were anxious initially: "But now, they have been briefed on the law, and they are much calmer." Anyone convicted of a charge of public nuisance can be fined up to a maximum of S$1,000 (US$785). As for the charge of organising a demonstration without approval, the penalty is a fine of up to a maximum of S$5,000 (US$3,923). The latter offence falls under a regulation which says that no one can carry out public speaking activities, organise or participate in a performance or exhibition, or organise any demonstration without the commissioner of parks and recreation's approval. Ravi also said on Monday that he will put up an application to challenge the Parks and Trees Act. He told reporters: "Nowhere in the Act does it give the minister power to regulate free speech and assembly. Parliament has not conferred that authority on the minister under the Act." The police said last Friday that their investigations into the "Return Our CPF" protest at Hong Lim Park on Sept 27 covered a total of 14 people. A group of five who "participated actively at the event" were given conditional warnings, the police said, adding that the case against them has concluded. A conditional warning means they must not commit any offence for a specified period, usually for 12 or 24 months. Should they do so, they will be charged with new as well as the existing offences. Meanwhile, the outcome of investigations for the remaining three individuals "will be made known to them in due course", the police added.

SINGAPORE: Social worker and activist Jolovan Wham is being investigated for protesting outside State Courts without a valid permit, police said on Saturday (Mar 2). Wham had posted a photo on Dec 13 on social media channels, which showed him standing outside the court complex while holding up a piece of paper that read: "Drop the charges against Terry Xu and Daniel De Costa." The protest happened the same day Terry Xu, the editor of socio-political website The Online Citizen, and Daniel De Costa were charged for publishing an article that alleged corruption among the Singapore Government's highest officers. In response to Channel NewsAsia's queries, police said that Wham had written to the police earlier in November to apply for a permit to stage a protest outside the State Courts. His application was not approved. "The State Courts is gazetted as a Prohibited Area under the Public Order Act, with stricter security protocols," police said. "He was well aware that a police permit was required for such an event. Still, he went ahead to protest outside the State Courts on Dec 13, 2018." Police also cited Wham's prior public order related offences, and said it reflected "a pattern of Wham's wilful disregard for Singapore's laws". Wham was sentenced on Feb 21 for organising a public assembly without a permit. He was fined S$3,200 but chose to serve jail time for 16 days in default. He was found guilty over a November 2016 event - titled Civil Disobedience and Social Movements - that featured a live speech by Hong Kong activist Joshua Wong Chi-Fung. In 2017, Wham also organised a "silent protest" on an MRT train and pasted two A4-sized sheets on the window. In July that year he asked the public on Facebook to participate in a vigil outside Changi Prison Complex and proceeded to hold the event without applying for the requisite permit. Wham also refused to sign statements to the police, which is required by law. "There are avenues for Singaporeans to express their views on issues that concern them. The Speakers' Corner was set up in 2000 to allow Singaporeans to conduct public assemblies without the need for a permit, subject to certain conditions being met," police added.

SINGAPORE - A Singaporean activist was found guilty on Thursday, January 3, of organizing an illegal protest after holding what he called a "harmless" public discussion in 2016 that featured Hong Kong democracy campaigner Joshua Wong speaking via Skype. Jolovan Wham, 39, was charged with violating public order laws because he failed to apply for a police permit before inviting Wong, a non-Singaporean, to speak via video call to an audience in the tightly controlled city-state. Wham, who is also an advocate for migrant workers' rights, said earlier in a Facebook post that the gathering in November 2016 "was a harmless and straightforward discussion about social movements". But district judge Kessler Soh Boon Leng said in his verdict Thursday that the prosecution proved the charges against Wham "beyond reasonable doubt" and set sentencing for January 23. Wong, who was among the leaders of the massive pro-democracy protests in Hong Kong in 2014, spoke about the role of civil disobedience and democracy in building social movements. Organizing a public assembly without a permit in Singapore is punishable by a fine of up to Sg$5,000 ($3,600). Repeat offenders can be fined up to Sg$10,000 or jailed a maximum six months or both. The wealthy city-state is regularly criticized by rights groups for its heavy-handed response to political dissent and freedom of expression. Last month, the editor of a Singaporean website was charged with defamation for publishing a letter alleging corruption among the country's leaders. The same month, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong sued a blogger for defamation over a Facebook post alleging he was the target of an investigation in neighbouring Malaysia related to the scandal-plagued wealth fund 1MDB. Update: On 21 February 2019, Jolovan was sentenced to a fine of S$3,200 (US$2,367), or by default, 16 days in prison.

The editor of socio-political website The Online Citizen (TOC) was charged with criminal defamation on Thursday (Dec 13) for publishing an article that alleged corruption among the Singapore Government's highest officers. Xu Yuanchen, better known as Terry Xu, was charged alongside the alleged author of the article, 35-year-old Daniel De Costa. De Costa received a second charge of unauthorised access to computer material. He had allegedly logged into the email account of a "Willy Sum" and submitted the article to TOC. The article, titled "The Take Away from Seah Kian Ping's Facebook Post" was published under Willy Sum's name. Willy Sum was really a person called Sim Wee Lee, also known as Willy. The article, published on Sep 4, alleged that "we have seen multiple policy and foreign screw-ups, tampering of the Constitution, corruption at the highest echelons and apparent lack of respect from foreign powers ever since the demise of founding father Lee Kuan Yew". Xu was charged with defaming members of Singapore's Cabinet by publishing the letter knowing that it would harm the Cabinet members' reputation. De Costa was accused of sending the email titled "PAP MP apologises to SDP" to TOC for publication, knowing that it would harm the reputation of the Cabinet. He allegedly did so by logging into Sim Wee Lee's Yahoo email at an Internet cafe in Chinatown. TOC took down the article after the Infocomm Media Development Authority ordered it to do so, and the police searched the homes of Xu and Mr Sim on Nov 20. The hearing was attended by friends of the two men, including activists like Jolovan Wham. Xu is being represented by lawyer Priscilla Chia, while Eugene Thuraisingam is acting for De Costa. When Deputy Public Prosecutor Tan Zhongshan asked for the next hearing to be a pre-trial conference instead of a further mention, Mr Thuraisingam objected, saying: "This should be treated like any other normal case." District Judge Adam Nakhoda set the next hearing for a pre-trial conference on Jan 8. If found guilty of criminal defamation, the pair can be jailed for up to two years, fined, or both. De Costa can be fined up to S$5,000 and jailed a maximum of two years for his computer crime. Neither made indications on whether they would be pleading guilty or claiming trial. Xu was offered bail of S$5,000, while De Costa was given S$10,000 bail.

SINGAPORE - The police are investigating socio-political website The Online Citizen (TOC) and one of its authors for the offence of criminal defamation, over its recent article involving comments made by MP Seah Kian Peng. A spokesman for the Infocomm Media Development Authority (IMDA), a statutory board under the Ministry of Communications and Information, told The Straits Times that it had lodged the police report. "IMDA has lodged a police report as The Online Citizen article 'The take away from Seah Kian Ping's Facebook post' made serious allegations that undermine the public's confidence in the Government's integrity," said the spokesman. In response to media queries, a police spokesman said on Tuesday (Nov 20) that a report was lodged against TOC and the author of the article "The take away from Seah Kian Ping's Facebook post". This article, whose headline had mis-spelt Mr Seah's name, was published on Sept 4, and its author was named to be Willy Sum. The article involves the response that Mr Seah had made on Facebook over a meeting between several Singaporean activists and Malaysian Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad in August. It has been removed from the TOC site. The police spokesman said the article made serious allegations that "the Government's highest officers are corrupt and that the Constitution has been tampered with". "The Police are investigating this, for the offence of criminal defamation. Electronic equipment such as laptops and handphones were seized in relation to the case," the spokesman added. According to a post on TOC's Facebook page on Tuesday, the website will be "on hiatus for the time being", as all the equipment used to run the website had been seized. It added that police officers seized the equipment at TOC chief editor Terry Xu's home on Tuesday morning. "The equipment, which include desktop, mobile devices and laptops, was seized at the residence of Terry Xu in the presence of five police officers this morning," wrote the post published at about 1.45pm. "No confirmed date of return has been given, as investigation will take some time to conclude." Ms Kirsten Han, a freelance journalist and editor-in-chief of online journalism platform New Naratif, wrote on Facebook at about 2.45pm that Mr Xu is being investigated for criminal defamation. She added: "He has been summoned to Cantonment Complex for questioning at 3pm." TOC was started in 2006. According to its website, it is currently run by Mr Xu as well as volunteer writers and editors. As of 10pm on Tuesday, TOC's website was still up. In 2011, TOC was gazetted by the Singapore Registry of Political Donations as a political organisation. Under the Political Donations Act, political organisations cannot receive funds from foreign contributors and anonymous contributions above $5,000. In February 2018, TOC was de-gazetted as a "political association", as it is currently run by only Mr Xu. The Straits Times has reached out to Mr Xu for comment. Police investigations are ongoing.

According to the information received, on October 3, 2018, Singapore's State Court convicted Mr. Seelan Palay for "staging an unlawful performance without a permit" under Section 7 of the 2009 Public Order Act and sentenced him to pay a S$2,5000 fine (around 1,570 Euros). Following Mr. Seelan Palay's refusal to pay the fine, he was ordered to serve a two-week prison term. Mr. Seelan Palay was arrested on October 1, 2017 outside Parliament House, where he briefly staged a solo performance by holding an art piece that was meant as a tribute to former political prisoner and elected Member of Parliament (MP) Mr. Chia Thye Poh. The performance, titled "32 years: The interrogation of a mirror", aimed at commemorating the 32 years Mr. Chia Thye Poh spent either in detention without trial or under travel restrictions[1]. Mr. Seelan Palay started the performance at Speakers' Corner in Hong Lim Park before continuing on to the National Gallery and then Parliament House. Mr. Seelan Palay had obtained a National Parks Board (NParks) permit that allowed him to conduct his performance only at Speakers' Corner. On October 2, 2017, Mr. Seelan Palay was released on a S$5,000 (around 3,145 Euros) bail, pending investigation. On May 18, 2018, Singapore's State Court heard the case of Mr. Seelan Palay. During the hearing, the Deputy Public Prosecutor requested the court to sentence Mr. Seelan Palay to a fine of S$3,000 (around 1,890 Euros) - the maximum penalty under the 2009 Public Order Act. The Deputy Public Prosecutor justified the request by arguing that Mr. Seelan Palay had previously been convicted and fined on charges of participating in an assembly without permit on two separate occasions in 2010. The Observatory condemns the sentencing and arbitrary detention of Mr. Seelan Palay, which are only aimed at punishing the legitimate exercise of his rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and freedom of opinion and expression. The Observatory calls on the authorities of Singapore to immediately and unconditionally release Mr. Seelan Palay and end all acts of judicial harassment against him and all human rights defenders in the country.

Artist/Activist, Seelan Palay presented a performance on Sunday afternoon at Hong Lim Park, "32 Years: The Interrogation of a Mirror" in commemoration of the 32 years of detention without trial that former Elected Member of Parliament, Chia Thye Poh went through. The event was published through a Facebook event page created by Seelan and held at 2pm with about twenty members of public in attendance. During the ten minute performance, Seelan who turns 32 this year, said he couldn't fathom how a person could be locked up without trial for the same number of years that he has lived. Prior to matching off out of Hong Lim Park where he obtained a permit to perform, to carry out the unannounced part of his art performance, he said to his artwork as if speaking to Chia himself, "I hope to ask you two questions. Can the liberated human mind be constrained by a state sanctioned space, and in that regard, can a liberated work of art be contained within a state sanctioned space? Do you know the answers to both of these questions? I will show you." After making his way to the Art Gallery and to the Parliament House to complete his artwork on a mirror, he stood in front of the Parliament House, holding onto his art piece. After several failed attempts by the Police to persuade Seelan to leave the area, he was arrested by the Police at 3.20pm. It is unsure what offence did the Police arrest him under, however, under Singapore law, one person can be considered as illegal assembly. According to Straits Times, the police said it received a call for assistance at 2.53 pm regarding "a man who was allegedly holding an unlawful protest outside the Parliament House". The call should have come from the police officers stationed at the Parliament House as officers came out of the security gantry just minutes after Seelan stood in front of the gates of Parliament House. He was subsequently taken away in a police vehicle from the Parliament House and have not been released from custody by Sunday night. Attempts to clarify his status have been stonewalled by the Police. Update: Seelan was released on Monday afternoon and put on a bail of $5000. Dr Chia Thye Poh, political prisoner with the longest detention in the world Dr Chia Thye Poh was elected as a Member of Parliament as a candidate from defunct political party, Barisan Sosialis and was detained without trial under the Internal Security Act and placed under house arrest for allegedly conducting pro-communist activities against the government. He was imprisoned for 23 years and house arrest for another nine years - in which he was first confined to the island of Sentosa and then subject to restrictions on his place of abode, employment, travel, and exercise of political rights. In total with 32 years of detention, Dr Chia was subjected to a longer period of detention than what former President of South Africa, Nelson Mandela went through in his 27 years of prison. Prior to his detention, he had been a teacher, a physics lecturer, a socialist political activist and a member of the Parliament of Singapore. Subsequent to it, he has been a doctoral student and an interpreter. After being released in November 1998, Dr Chia said, "The ISA is a law that tramples on human dignity and strikes fear into the mind of the people." In 1989, he said, "Under the PAP rule, there is no genuine parliamentary democracy... there is always the danger of one-party rule slipping into one-man rule, and worse still, into dynastic rule. The PAP government does not like critical newspapers or publications, and is intolerant towards sharp criticisms. They seem elitist and arrogant, regarding themselves as the best and the most suitable to rule Singapore. And they rule it with iron-handed policies." and added, "My ideal has not been dampened after[more than thirty] years under detention. In fact, prison life can only make a person more determined to fight against oppression and for a fair, just and democratic society." One person illegal assembly Back in 2009, Ms Sylvia stood and oppose the Public Order Bill in 2009 which saw major changes in the legislation on public assembly, asking how far should State power be used to restrict citizens from free movement and expressing their beliefs or grievances to the point of using force, even lethal force. She said, "In Singapore, an individual's right to freedom of expression and assembly is enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution, under Part IV, entitled "Fundamental Liberties". However, that Article also allows Parliament to place some restrictions on these for the sake of security and public order. Nevertheless, the primary assumption is that such freedoms are fundamental rights of citizens. Has this Bill crossed the line asking Singaporeans to give up too much vis-a-vis the State?" Ms Lim further highlighted there are several disturbing aspects of the Bill. The three aspects most glaring are the changes relating to: (a) Public assemblies and processions; (b) Move-on powers; and (c) Prohibition of filming of law enforcement operations. She noted, "The change in definition of "assembly" and "procession" is more disturbing. As the Explanatory Statement to the Bill says, these words are no longer restricted to gatherings of five persons or more. This means even one person alone can constitute illegal assembly, thus giving the State complete control over an individual citizen's freedoms. First, to say that one person constitutes an assembly is certainly an abuse of the word. Secondly, is the Government making the change because there had been incidents involving less than five persons which had disrupted public life? Unless there is compelling evidence to prove to us that expanding the definition of assembly and procession." In response to the point of the change of wordings to allow the Police to classify one person as an illegal assembly, Minister of Law, K Shanmugam said, "Fourth, the number of persons, which is five in the Miscellaneous Offences Act, has been used as a proxy for a possible disruptive effect of the activity. But it is more logical to simply focus on the activity rather than choosing an arbitrary number, for example, a group of four intend in causing disruption could pose a far greater threat than a group of 20 who wish to promote a peaceful cause. Thus, we have decided to focus on the activities and their effects, rather than the number. I will give two illustrations. During the Hindraf incident in Malaysia, a local activist protested alone outside the Malaysian Embassy for five days. Large groups gathered, including many Malaysians who came over. Understandably, such actions would cause concern for the Embassy officials. In such situations, it is better that the Police have the power to tell the person to stop protesting and move on, if they believed that his actions could be disruptive to public order or public interest. Second illustration. During the ASEAN Summit in Singapore in 2007, groups of four persons gathered to evade the permit requirements. Having a threshold creates an artificial numerical criterion which can lead to a cat-and-mouse game with the Police. This distracts the Police from their responsibility to secure the safety and security of the event. We debate in this House with the often implicit assumption that people behave reasonably. But the unfortunate truth is that there is always a small minority which get up to endless farcical antics outside there and the law has to deal with that. If one is too low a number, what number should be chosen? Five? Four? Three? Different countries have different regulatory regimes for outdoor activities. There are countries which have regimes similar to ours and with a threshold of three persons but it is better for us simply to focus on the effect of the activities."

On 18 June 2017, Han Hui Hui, a known Singaporean blogger, has been detained at KLIA and later deported back to Singapore. According to International Federation for Human Rights (FIDH) and Suaram, she was supposed to attend a human rights workshop in Kuala Lumpur.

Police are looking into an alleged protest on board an MRT train on Saturday (Jun 3) after a police report was lodged about the event. The event was staged to protest against detentions under the Internal Security Act which took place in 1987. Twenty-two people were arrested during Operation Spectrum that year for allegedly plotting a Marxist conspiracy to overthrow the Government. Saturday's incident saw blindfolded activists holding up a book titled 1987: Singapore's Marxist Conspiracy 30 Years On, which was launched last month by those detained under Operation Spectrum. Social activist Jolovan Wham posted photos of activists holding up the book on the train on his personal Facebook profile on Saturday night. They have since been shared by other activists as well. Police added that anyone with information about the protest can submit it online. Update: The Police has informed through a press release that they will be charging Jolovan Wham, a well-known labour and human-rights activist in Court on Tuesday (29 November 2017) for organising public assemblies without a police permit under the Public Order Act, an offence of vandalism under the Vandalism Act, and for refusing to sign his statements under the Penal Code. The various offenses include organising a candlelight vigil with 16 other persons outside Changi Prison Complex (CPC) on 13 July 2017, a silent protest on MRT train with eight persons on 3 June 2017, organising an indoor public assembly which featured a foreign speaker and pasting two A-4 sheets of paper on a MRT train panel which is deemed an offence of vandalism. Illegal candlelight vigil According to the Police, Wham had earlier created a Facebook event on 13 July, asking the public to participate in a "vigil" outside CPC. The vigil was meant for Prabagaran Srivijayan, a Malaysian national sentenced to death and executed on 14 July. On the eve of his execution, Wham, along with anti-death penalty activists as well as friends and family of Prabagaran gathered outside Changi prison, where they held a candlelight vigil and displayed pictures of him. Police turned up and confiscated the candles and photo of Prabagaran but allowed them to stay at the site. Two months later, 17 of the attendees including Wham were called up for investigation for their various roles in organising and participating in an illegal public assembly. The Police claims that Wham stated in the Facebook post that a permit had not been sought for the event but went on to hold the "vigil" and will charge him for organising a public assembly without a police permit. Illegal silent protest On 3 June, nine activists took to the train to protest the horrendous treatment that the Singapore government meted out upon 22 individuals who were detained 30 years ago under an operation that was entitled,"Operation Spectrum" with the use of the Internal Security Act (ISA). The protest that was held on Saturday afternoon (3 June), was in the form of a silent demonstration with the activists holding a book, "1987 Singapore's Marxist Conspiracy, 30 Years On." and blindfolds on, briefly along the North-South Line. In relation to this event, Police states that Wham organised a "silent protest" on an MRT train with eight other persons without a police permit and that he had also pasted two A4-sheets on an MRT train panel committing an offence of vandalism under Section 3 of the Vandalism Act. Illegal public assembly for having foreign speaker Police states that Wham had earlier organised an indoor public assembly featuring a foreign speaker, which required a Police permit. It claims that it had engaged Wham prior to the event and advised him that a police permit was required. As Wham proceeded to hold the event without a police permit, the Police notes that Wham committed an offence of organising a public assembly without a police permit under the Public Order Act. The foreign speaker was Joshua Wong, more publicity known as the face of the Umbrella Movement pro-democracy protests in Hong Kong held in 2014. He, along with two other speakers, activists Kirsten Han and Seelan Palay, held a discussion on civil disobedience and democracy. Because of that forum, various equipment from the organisers were confiscated and they were investigated upon. The Police noted that Wham had refused to sign his statement on multiple occasions when required to by Police. The statement by the Police goes as far as to state that Wham is recalcitrant and has repeatedly shown blatant disregard for the law~ especially with regard to organ!sing or participating in illegal public assemblies and emphasised that it is a criminal offence under the Public Order Ad to organise or participate in a public assembly without a police permit in Singapore. "The Speakers' Corner, on the other hand, is an established space for Singaporeans to express their views on issues with which they are concerned. Singapore citizens can organise public assemblies at the Speaker's Comer in accordance with the rules." wrote the Police. Wham is understood to be currently in Police custody. Anyone convicted of the offence of organising a public assembly without a police permit under Section 16(1)(a) of the Public Order Act, Chapter 257A, is liable to be fined up to $5.000 Repeat offenders are liable to be fined up to $10,000 or imprisoned for up to 6 months or both. As for vandalism, if found guilty of the offence and shall be liable on conviction to a fine not exceeding $2,000 or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 3 years, and shall also, subject to sections 325(1) and 330(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cap. 68), be punished with caning with not less than 3 strokes and not more than 8 strokes, except that the punishment of caning shall not be imposed on a first conviction under the Vandalism Act.

"I've been banned for more than 27 months, from public speaking at Singapore's only legal venue available - Hong Lim Park speakers' corner. On 21,22 December 2016, Nparks emailed that I was not approved to utilise Hong Lim Park. According to the law, a Singaporean only needs to notify nparks of the usage of Hong Lim Park. However, nparks sent me an email to deter me from the usage of Hong Lim Park. The violation of human rights in Singapore by the government is such that: "NParks may approve or reject an Application or revoke any approval without giving any reasons" All other Singaporeans have an immediate reply saying that they can utilise Hong Lim Park. I am the only Singaporean who will first receive an email denying my rights to freedom of expression and public assembly, then receive an email asking me to wait. There will be no response as the government is known for using delay tactics. It is always after I've contacted international human rights organisations and overseas media, that finally the government will respond but with a wrong date." Han Hui Hui

SINGAPORE: The owner of now-defunct sociopolitical site The Real Singapore (TRS) was on Tuesday (Jun 28) sentenced to eight months' jail after he pleaded guilty last week to six sedition charges. Yang Kaiheng, 27, admitted he had used his popular site to "promote feelings of ill-will and hostility" and to fan anti-foreigner sentiments in Singapore. The prosecution, led by Deputy Public Prosecutor G Kannan, said Yang "cannot expect to get away lightly after toying with our peace and harmony". He said Yang's conduct, if left unchecked, "can tear our society apart". Yang and his wife, Ai Takagi, 23, had published at least seven seditious posts targeting foreigners here. "All foreigners ... were fair game in the business (Yang) ran. For what? The almighty dollar," DPP Kannan said. "At the heart of this case ... lies the exploitation of such feelings (of xenophobia and racism) purely for financial gain," said District Judge Chay Yuen Fatt, in sentencing Yang. YANG ALLOWED TAKAGI TO "KICK UP A STORM" FOR MORE MONEY: JUDGE Bank statements show TRS netted Yang and Takagi more than half a million dollars in advertising revenue in less than three years, allowing the couple to pay off their A$190,000 (S$191,768) 30-year home loan in just 11 months. The prosecution argued that Yang, despite being aware the seditious posts were "stirring up anger and resentment in Singapore", continued to allow Takagi to publish posts dealing with race, religion and nationality. "His crimes are crimes of omission as much as they are crimes of commission," DPP Kannan told the court, pointing to the fact that Yang did nothing to rein in his wife. The prosecution also slammed Yang's "irresponsible and wholly reckless, no-censorship editorial policy". Judge Chay said that though the seditious posts may have been penned or edited by Takagi, TRS was the "brainchild" of Yang, who had "full control" of the site. Agreeing with the prosecution, Judge Chay said Yang did nothing to stem the outpouring of "xenophobic and racist feelings" of readers. Instead, he allowed Takagi to "kick up a storm on the Internet with zero control" so as to generate even more revenue, the judge said. The prosecution also pointed out Yang's plea of guilt was entered midway through his trial, "after his credibility was demolished on the stand". DPP Kannan said Yang has shown no remorse and had no choice, now that conviction was "staring him in the face". YANG NOT INVOLVED IN DAY-TO-DAY OPERATIONS OF TRS: DEFENCE Defence lawyer Choo Zheng Xi argued that a five-month sentence would suffice, describing his client's role in TRS as "limited". "He did not have a writing or editorial role in TRS," Mr Choo said. He added that Yang who has been "scarred" by this experience, has given up socio-political blogging. Mr Choo also highlighted "extreme hardship" Yang has had to cope with. His father suffers from "locked-in syndrome" and requires intensive daily care, the lawyer said. Takagi is currently serving a 10-month jail term. She pleaded guilty earlier this year to four sedition charges. At a hearing for Takagi earlier this year, prosecutors charged that the Australian university student had concocted "scandalous, provocative and racy material" in a bid to increase TRS' following and garner "enormous" advertising revenue. The site was shut down by the Media Development Authority in May 2015. For sedition, Yang could have been jailed for up to three years and/or fined up to S$5,000 per charge.

SINGAPORE: Blogger Han Hui Hui, 24, was found guilty and fined S$3,100 on Monday (Jun 27) for disrupting a charity event for special needs children at Hong Lim Park in 2014 by leading a rowdy protest, which she organised without approval from the National Parks Board. Han, together with six other co-accused, held a Return Our CPF rally at the same time and place as the YMCA Proms @ The Park 2014 charity carnival on Sep 27, 2014. In court on Monday, Han said she would be appealing against her conviction. "We have our notice of appeal right now," she said, adding that the case clearly had "a foregone conclusion". Two of Han's co-accused, Low Wai Choo, 56, and Koh Yew Beng, 61, were also found guilty on Monday of causing a public nuisance. They were fined S$450 each. District Judge Chay Yuan Fatt handed down the guilty verdict after an emotional seven-day trial, during which the judge had to intervene multiple times. Low told Judge Chay the trio's trial was not a fair one. "I don't feel it's a fair trial. I feel we should be discharged," she said. "We are just like a little bird in your hand now (sic). We are at your mercy," she added, urging the judge to examine his "conscience". Han's supporters protested at the YMCA event by shouting loudly, chanting slogans, waving flags, holding placards, blowing whistles and beating drums, prosecutors told the court during Han's trial. Judge Chay said Han and her co-accused had "intruded and bulldozed" their way into the charity event, leaving the special needs children involved "visibly affected and distraught". The judge also noted the protesters had confronted the Guest of Honour for the charity event, then-Minister of State for Trade and Industry Teo Ser Luck, blocking his path. The organisers, concerned with the safety of the attendees, hastily concluded the event, Judge Chay added. The mothers of two special needs children, who were performing at the charity event, had testified that the rowdy protest had scared their children and disrupted the event. Loud, shrill noises scare Down's Syndrome sufferers, who are sensitive to loud and sudden noises, the mothers had said. A YMCA executive, who also testified at the trial, described the protest as "teetering on violence". She said she believed an autistic child had a "breakdown" and had to be brought to a quieter part of the park to calm down. In sentencing the trio, Judge Chay said: "This is a case where, ironically and regrettably, the accused persons while ostensibly championing the rights of a class of persons, did so by blithely trampling on the rights of another group of persons." For disrupting the event and causing a public nuisance, the trio faced a fine of up to S$1,000 each. For organising a protest without prior approval, Han could have faced a fine of up to S$5,000. Blogger Roy Ngerng, 33, and Chua Siew Leng, 43, who were also charged over the protest, both elected to plead guilty last year. They were ordered to pay fines of S$1,900 and S$300, respectively. Goh Aik Huat, 42, who claimed trial to the public nuisance charge against him, was later let off with a conditional warning after making a public apology in court.

Amnesty International is deeply concerned by the continued sensitivity of the Singapore government to criticism and alternate views of Singaporeans, which further reduces the space for activists, bloggers and civil society organisations in Singapore. In the past two months, political activists, a blogger as well as the LGBTI community have faced reprisals for their legitimate exercise of the right to freedom of expression, peaceful assembly and association. In May 2016, six criminal charges were brought against 17 year old blogger Amos Yee for allegedly "wounding the religious feelings' of Muslims and Christians under Section 298 of the Penal Code, which covers offences related to religion and race. He also faces two separate charges for not reporting to police under previous bail conditions. This is not the first time that the 17 year old blogger has been targeted by the authorities for his comments on a blog site. In May 2015, Yee was sentenced to 55 days in jail for mocking Singapore's first Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew. Under international law and standards, the right to freedom of expression is not limited to views that are widely acceptable and popular, rather, states must also respect and protect the expression of minority views through a variety of mediums, including views that some may find offensive. In another incident, police questioned political activists Roy Ngerng and Teo Soh Long on 1 June 2016. The duo were subjected to hours of investigation and the seizure of personal electronic equipment in regards to their Facebook postings on a by-election "cooling off' day, which prohibits campaigning on the eve of elections. While the right to freedom of expression may be subject to certain restrictions provided by law, these restrictions must meet strict tests of necessity and proportionality. Cooling-off periods may be legitimate to protect the integrity and peaceful conduct of elections, however in this case, the two activists were singled out by the authorities and detained an unreasonable length of time. Ngerng claims he was detained for nearly eight hours by police. Amnesty International believes that these investigations may be politically motivated, as other politicians who have been reported for violations in the past have not faced the same level of inquiry. The authorities have also interfered with the legitimate activities of LGBTI groups, through Singapore's Ministry of Home Affairs warning to multinational corporations to ensure they do not continue to sponsor annual gay-rights event Pink Dot SG. In its statement, the Ministry of Home Affairs stated that it would not allow foreign entities to "interfere in domestic issues', especially those deemed "controversial' in nature. LGBTI people face high levels of stigma and discrimination in Singapore, where same sex sexual activity between men remains criminalised. The Singapore government must create a safe space and refrain from interfering with human rights organisations, in particular LGBTI groups. In addition, the government has a responsibility to comply with the principle of non-discrimination and meet its obligations under CEDAW to change social and cultural conduct which discriminate on the basis of sex, gender or sexual orientation. Amnesty International notes with concern the situation of human rights defenders and government critics in Singapore as they lack institutional protection, recognition and guarantees of human rights. Amnesty International urges Singapore to accept recommendations on repealing or narrowing restrictions on public discourse that were made when it came under review at the UN Human Rights Council on 27 January 2016. We also call upon Singapore to respect, protect and facilitate the rights to freedom of expression peaceful assembly and association and to repeal laws that create restrictions that are not legitimate, necessary and proportionate to these rights.

Singapore's High Court on Thursday 22nd January convicted a prominent dissident blogger of contempt of court for "scandalising" the judiciary in an online commentary, an offence punishable by jail time. Alex Au, 61, was found guilty of insulting the judiciary in an October 5, 2013 post that insinuated that hearing dates on a constitutional challenge to a law criminalising gay sex between men had been rigged. "I am satisfied that the Attorney-General has established beyond reasonable doubt that (the article) as a whole poses or would pose a real risk of undermining public confidence in the administration of justice in Singapore," Justice Belinda Ang said in a written judgement. "I therefore find the respondent guilty of scandalising contempt in respect of that article," she said. Ang said sections of the article had suggested that "as the Chief Justice wanted to hear one case, the Supreme Court deliberately delayed the determination of another case so that the outcome of the first case would likely have an influence on the outcome of the second case". The judge added that the article had also suggested that two senior justices had acted "in a way that was contrary to the fundamental principles of judicial independence". Ang however ruled that a second article flagged by prosecutors, in which the blogger had said "my confidence in the Singapore judiciary is as limp as a flag on a windless day", did not contravene the law. A sentence is expected to be handed down at a later date. Contempt of court carries a possible jail sentence, a fine or both. There is no maximum penalty specified under the law. Au's lawyer Peter Low told AFP he was "disappointed" by the ruling. Au, well-known in Singapore for his commentaries critical of the long-ruling People's Action Party (PAP), is also a leading gay-rights activist who has called for the repeal of Section 377A of the penal code, which criminalises sex between men. First introduced by British colonial administrators in 1938, the law is not actively enforced by authorities. But the government says it has to remain on the books because most Singaporeans are conservative and do not accept homosexuality. Singapore's highest court, the Court of Appeal, in October upheld rulings by lower courts that it was up to parliament to repeal the Section 377A. The Singapore government has taken a strong stand against attacks on the judiciary, saying they undermine public confidence in the institution. In 2010, British author Alan Shadrake was given a six-week jail term for publishing a book critical of the administration of the death penalty, which was ruled an insult to the judiciary. Governed by the PAP since 1959, Singapore prides itself in its stability, low levels of corruption and high standard of living. But freedom of speech advocates have routinely accused the government of using the judiciary to stifle dissent and sideline political opponents.

SINGAPORE: A Singapore court on Monday 12 January 2015 ordered a local activist to pay $22,000 in legal costs to Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong, who had won a defamation suit against him. Roy Ngerng is also expected separately to pay thousands more in damages to Lee, who sued the blogger for libel after he accused the Singapore leader of misappropriating state pension funds. Lee's press secretary Chang Li Lin said in a statement that a High Court judge at a hearing on Monday ordered Ngerng to pay the prime minister Sg$29,000 ($22,000). "This amount is for the legal fees and related expenses incurred up to the conclusion of the application for summary judgement," the statement said. The High Court ruled in a summary judgement last November that Ngerng, a former government employee, had defamed Lee in his blog. It was the first such ruling in the city-state over a purely online article. Ngerng, who writes a blog called Heart Truths, was seeking a trial to defend himself but High Court Judge Lee Seiu Kin ruled there was "no triable defence against the plaintiff's claim" and issued the judgement. No dates have yet been set for the subsequent hearings to determine damages payable to Lee, his press secretary said. But in general, such civil suits are launched in the High Court when the value of claims is above Sg$250,000. Ngerng had already admitted that his May 15, 2014 blog accusing the prime minister, who is also chairman of state investment fund GIC, of misusing the Central Provident Fund (CPF) was false and without foundation. He offered Sg$5,000 as compensation to Lee, who rejected the amount. GIC is a sovereign wealth fund that manages more than $100 billion of the city-state's foreign reserves. The CPF is the state pension scheme. Ngerng on Monday said in a statement he was merely questioning what he deemed was a "lack of transparency" in how the pension funds were being managed. "I did not say anything that is defamatory or against the law," he said. "It is my right to... be able to speak freely, as enshrined under the constitution." After he was sued by Lee, Ngerng, who has also led public protests over the CPF issue, was fired from his government hospital job for administrative reasons which he did not contest. In June he successfully raised more than Sg$112,000 through crowdfunding in order to fight the case, with over 4,000 people contributing cash. Singapore has consistently ranked high in surveys as one of the world's least corrupt countries, but rights groups say its leaders have used financially ruinous defamation suits to silence critics and political opponents. Media firms like Bloomberg, The Economist and the Financial Times as well as local opposition figures have previously paid damages and apologised to Singapore leaders for publishing articles found to be defamatory. Singaporean leaders maintain that the lawsuits are necessary to protect their reputations from unfounded allegations.

For "misconduct unbefitting an advocate and solicitor," human rights Lawyer M. Ravi was fined $7,000 by the Council of the Law Society of Singapore. This penalty, which comes under the Legal Profession Act, was imposed as Mr Ravi had, in his capacity as the advocate and solicitor for several plaintiffs, "prematurely released various court documents relating to the legal proceedings before they were served on the opposing party". Mr Ravi was also charged for making statements to the media which were "calculated to interfere with the fair proceedings or trial of the legal proceedings". The incidents happened when Mr Ravi was representing Mr Wee Kim San in his case for constitutional protection against discriminations of homosexuals in the workplace, and during a judicial review against the deportation of a foreign worker who was involved in the Little India riot in December 2013. A disciplinary tribunal, appointed by Chief Justice Sundaresh Menon to look into possible misconduct, recommended the penalty.The tribunal comprised of Senior Counsel Giam Chin Toon and lawyer Gina Lee-Wan. Mr Ravi has pleaded guilty to all of the seven charges levied against him. The tribunal had recommended a $1,000 fine for each charge, for a total of $7,000. He was also ordered by the tribunal to pay to pay $3,000 in costs to the Law Society.

Ms. Chee Siok Chin is a woman human rights defenders and one of the leaders of the Singapore Democratic Party (SDP) leaders. 10 September 2006 Ms. Chee Siok Chin was stopped by police for distributing flyers at Raffles City Shopping Centre criticizing the high salaries of the PAP ministers. The statement in the flyer said: "Tired of being a voiceless 2nd class citizen in your own country without any rights? Sick of the Ministers paying themselves millions of dollars while they tell you to keep making sacrifices for Singapore?" 29 December 2008 The Central Police Division charged Ms. Chee Siok Chin for participating in an assembly intended to demonstrate opposition to the actions of the Government, which was held without a permit under Rule 5 of the Miscellaneous Offences (Public Order & Nuisance) (Assemblies & Processions) Rules. 18 December 2009 District Judge Chang Lye Beng found Ms. Chee Siok Chin guilty of distributing pamphlets criticizing the PAP government without a permit and fined the maximum amount of S$1000. The Judge did not give any reason for his verdict. After the decision, Ms. Chee Siok Chin made the following statement: "I continue to say that what we did was not a crime. Criticizing one's government is a right guaranteed in a democratic society. By finding us guilty, you are as good as saying that we do not have this right. By pronouncing us guilty, you are as good as saying that Singapore is not a democratic society and that this government is an undemocratic one." 4 January 2010 Ms. Chee Siok Chin began serving her one- week jail sentence. However, she will continue with her appeal because she feels that it is important that the high Court renders its decision and grounds if it upholds the conviction. During her imprisonment, Ms. Chee Siok Chin will be brought to court daily for the ongoing hearings before District Judge Toh Yung Cheong for a separate charge for "attempting to take part in a procession" during the WB-IMF meeting in 2006.

The SDP has received information that the Media Development Authority has asked Kinokuniya Bookstore to remove copies of Once A Jolly Hangman written by Mr Alan Shadrake from its shelves. The book describes the work of Mr Darshan Singh who was Singapore's main executioner. Mr Shadrake, a freelance writer and journalist, has written a compelling book looking behind the scenes of Singapore's execution machine. The death penalty, as it is applied in Singapore, hangs on average one person a week, a rate that is one of the highest in the world. Once A Jolly Hangman has been making its rounds in Singapore and the Singapore Democrats have obtained a copy. It recounts in shocking detail the gruesome hangings that go on in Changi prison. Although the book has not been officially banned yet, it seems that the authorities are concerned about its contents and has ordered Kinokuniya not to sell it. This is reminiscent of communist type rule in China and erstwhile Eastern Europe. It certainly does not befit a modern First World government that the PAP touts itself to be. In the past, Mr Francis Seow's book To Catch A Tartar received similar treatment. Sold at Select Books in the 1990s, Government officials ordered the copies to be removed although the book was not officially banned. Perhaps nervous about the growing antipathy towards the mandatory death penalty for small-time drug mules who do the bidding of druglords, the Government is trying to restrict information on the subject. Mr M Ravi, Singapore's human rights lawyer, has been rigorously campaigning and advocating against the law. His efforts have resulted in the Malaysian Government appealing to its Singaporean counterpart to spare the life of 21-year-old Yong Vui Kong, a Malaysian due to be hanged soon for peddling heroin. Mr Shadrake has been researching the book for years. He dedicates one chapter to different persons who were hanged or had faced the gallows. His interviews include Dr Chee Soon Juan who was involved in the rudimentary stages of the campaign against the mandatory death penalty. He also wrote about how a German lady Ms Julia Bohl got off the death sentence when Germany pressed the PAP Government not to execute her, and compared the case to Nguyen Van Tuong, an Australian of Vietnamese descent, who was hanged because the Australian Government did not pressure Singapore.