IBA letter

Personal letter to the IBA on their decision to hold their anual conference in Singapore.
=============================================================


23 March 2007

Fernando Pombo
President

Mark Ellis
Executive Director

International Bar Association
10th Floor
1 Stephen St
London, W1T 1AT
United Kingdom

Dear Sirs,

I understand that the IBA has decided to hold its conference in Singapore and preparations are underway for this big event. As a proud citizen, I bid you a very warm welcome to Singapore. I am also aware of the controversy that has been generated as a result of IBA’s decision to hold the event in Singapore.

While I do understand the concerns of the opponents of such a decision, I am not totally against such a decision. In your open response to the SDP, you stated that “the IBA’s very presence has allowed us to engage the legal profession on the importance of governance, transparency and the rule of law” in hosting countries that were or are struggling to uphold the rule of law, best explains your rational.

I disagree with the stance taken by opponents such as Dr. Chee Soon Juan that the IBA should refrain from holding the event in Singapore altogether, even though I believe he is entitled to voice his opinion. Dr Chee’s stance on the matter directly contradicts the notion of and open and honest debate, one that he so fervently advocates. However, I do share a common ground with him that victims of human rights abuses in Singapore be allowed to give a first hand account of the situation during the conference.

There are some serious human right issues that still persist in Singapore. One of such and perhaps the most pressing is the use of defamation suits. As you may already know, defamation suits are frequently used by ministers, most notably Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong and his father Lee Kuan Yew to sue political opponents who are just merely doing their job. The effects may be devastating for the politicians who are subsequently made bankrupt, as they are unable to pay, but more importantly it works like a charm in stifling debate and opinions of ordinary citizens. Who decides what’s defamatory - the Singapore courts, as we would like to believe. Unfortunately, a closer look would reveal that the courts are not independent of the government, no matter how much the government claims it to be. Here are some statistics – as of present, no defendant has ever won a single defamation case against prime minister or senior minister, and now minister mentor in the Singapore courts. Another disturbing revelation is that some lawyers who are members of the Queen’s Counsel (QC) are banned from representing individuals in such defamation cases. The reason was that the QC layers had "damaged the reputation of Singapore" in the past. Therefore, it is no surprise that Singaporean lawyers do not want to take the risk by representing opposition figures sued for defamation.

The case in point is a scandal involving the most popular charity in Singapore, the National Kidney Foundation. (NKF) T.T. Durai, the then chief executive of the NKF was alleged to have made false declarations and misusing the organisation’s funds. To make matters worse, the government did not insist that their operations were made transparent despite concern from the public and being a charitable organisation. Mr. Durai had on several occasions sued the volunteers at NKF who’s only wrong doing was to remark that he was flying on first class flights and that it had all been paid for. Unable to hire lawyers, they agreed to settle the matter out of court. These incidents only made Mr. Durai bolder to such a point he thought he could sue the local newspaper, The Straits Times for publishing an article uncovering such practices. This time, however he lost as the Straits Times were able to hire lawyers to challenge his innocence all the way and to reveal the evidence. This resulted in his resignation from the NKF. He was subsequently arrested then charged.

When it all came to light, the fallout was devastating; a huge number of the public withdrew their pledge donations to the NKF. The prime minister and his father (who is still in parliament) sued Dr Chee for defamation when he published an article on the scandal in his party’s newsletter, and Far Eastern Economic Review (FEER) for publishing a report in their journal on Dr Chee’s comments on the matter.

Hence, what can be learnt from this incident? Do you see the parallels between the use of defamation suits by ministers and this case? It is obvious that Mr Durai, being in a powerful position, followed suit which has brought him some success until it could not be covered up anymore. In this case, it may have already been obvious to the public but no one wanted to raise the issue for fear of being sued by Mr Durai as in the previous cases. The point that I’m trying to illustrate is that defamation suits can be abused and have been used to create a climate of fear among the public, thus stifling debate and freedom of expression.

This episode may, no doubt be a normal occurrence of almost any country in the world, regardless of first world or not. But the current practice of using defamation suits would make more difficult or prevent justice from properly being done in Singapore. It shows that the plaintiffs are not always right, no matter who they are or what they say, and it takes a huge effort, resources and the right people to prove them wrong. In the meantime, justice will not be done and injustice may take its place.

With these issues at hand, sir, may I personally suggest that you incorporate a session in your conference that invites anybody that has been fined, jailed or sued till bankruptcy as a result of defamation suits in Singapore be invited to give a first hand account of their experiences, including the judicial proceedings that they have witnessed?

This is imperative for the IBA as I recognise the need for us to remain impartial and hear from all sides to obtain a clearer picture of the human rights and rule of law situation in Singapore. Having the better picture, I hope attendees will be able to wrap up the conference by drafting proposals to provide a remedy for improvement of the situation in Singapore. This would be the key issue to ensuring accountably and upholding the rule of law.

As with seen with the subsequent suing of Dr Chee for his article on the NKF scandal (this is not his first time being sued) and the FEER for their publication, this problem continues to this day.

Since it’s an informed decision by the IBA to host the event in Singapore, I’ll respect that. It is important, however to listen to the views from all sides before coming to a judgement.

I believe the IBA has made commendable efforts to ensure justice is being done worldwide.

I noted that you have held events in countries with perilous regimes such as Iraq, Afghanistan and China, just to name a few in an attempt to encourage upholding human rights and the rule of law. And I have seen positive outcomes of them.

Also notable was the session “Guantanamo Bay – where rights end?” you hosted last year during Chicago 2006. It was great. This goes to show that no country, no matter how powerful or liberal in this world is free from human rights abuses. There is nothing wrong about knowing them, however knowing but not doing anything about them is.

Although I’m not a practicing legal profession nor am I associated in anyway with the IBA, all that I ask is that you seriously consider my request. I’m making ths appeal not on behalf of any political party but for all Singaporeans. That isn’t too much to ask, is it? As a Singaporean living overseas at the moment, I can understand the suffering my fellow Singaporeans go through straining to voice their opinion while risking defamation charges.

I am not affiliated with any political party whatsoever, but I just feel that it is necessary for a well respected organisation that represents lawyers worldwide speak up on the rights of Singaporeans.

I wish you all the best in your planning for this year’s conference in Singapore and I look forward to see an honest and meaningful debate take place on the issue of human rights and the rule of law in Singapore.


Yours sincerely,


Brendan Chong

====================================================

A copy of the letter can be found in pdf format here.