28 Feb 07
28 February 2007
Mr Fernando Pombo
President
International Bar Association
Mr Fernando Peláez-Pier
Vice-President
Mr Akira Kawamura
Secretary-General
Mr David W Rivkin
Chair, Legal Practice Division
Mr Martin Solc
Chair, Public and Professional Interest Division
Mr Mark Ellis
Executive Director
Dear Sirs,
I thank you for your expeditious and most informative reply.
I am heartened to read that IBA continues to be a steadfast
advocate for human rights and the rule of law throughout the
world.
It is also noteworthy that the IBA has plans for a Rule of Law Day
during your annual conference this year. Unfortunately, this still
does not address the appeal that we are making to you. Having a
general discussion on the Rule of Law Day does not speak to the
issue of the egregious abuse of human rights by the Singapore
Government.
In fact, as you will see below in the words of the Philip
Jeyaretnam, immediate past president of the Law Society of
Singapore (LSS), the Singapore establishment embraces the rhetoric
of the rule of law but, in reality, practices exactly the
opposite.
Laws are continually introduced, amended, and interpreted to ensure
that the rights of Singaporeans remain suppressed. Examples that I
cited in my opening letter to you amply illustrate this
point.
I would venture to say that the planned Rule of Law Day, with
discussion topics like how the rule of law affects economic
development and the Asian perspective of the rule of law (a
favourite topic of the Singapore Government), is exactly what the
Singapore Government would like to see take place.
Heres why: These sessions will be opened only to conference
attendees which means that Singaporean legal professionals
participating in the event who know the reality beyond the rhetoric
and who have the temerity to speak up will be few and far in
between, whereas those with pro-establishment views will be there
in force.
Singaporean lawyers who have been vocal and active in their pursuit
of justice and human rights have either been imprisoned without
trial, sued by ruling party leaders into bankruptcy, and/or have
fled to other countries. Examples are J B Jeyaretnam, Francis Seow,
Tang Liang Hong, Teo Soh Lung, Tang Fong Har, Kevin De Souza, Tan
Wah Piow, and Gopalan Nair, just to name a few.
There will be few non-Singaporean conference attendees who have an
intimate knowledge of human rights Singapore intimate enough to
conduct an intelligent discussion as it specifically relates to the
city-state. This inadequacy can and will be easily countered by
lawyers from Singapores establishment.
In the end, human rights situation in Singapore will be obscured,
at best, and ignored, at worst. In the meantime, the Singapore
Government will trumpet that if its human rights record was really
that bad, the IBA would not have held its annual conference
here.
To underscore our concerns, we note in your letter that the host
for the conference is the LSS. I dont know if Philip Jeyaretnam,
whom you cite in your letter, has revealed to you the Societys
recent past. In any event allow me to brief you. In 1987, former
solicitor-general and then-president of the LSS, Francis Seow,
served notice that the Society intended to be a more assertive and
caring bar. He also wanted to promote public awareness about
impending changes to existing laws.
As a result, the Government roundly attacked the LSS and prohibited
it from commenting on existing or proposed legislation, unless its
views were expressedly solicited. The Government proceeded to amend
the Legal Profession Act with the aim of cracking down on dissent
within the profession. Before it could do so, however, the LSS'
leadership unanimously voted to deplore the Governments intention.
The result was that Seow and a couple of other Society officials
were imprisoned without trial.
The LSS assumes a very different role today. Nothing is more
demonstrative of this than Philip Jeyaretnams introductory message
in the August 2006 issue of the Law Gazette: The foundational
value of the rule of law is beyond debate, and [Singapore] lawyers
must nurture, protect and uphold the rule of law. There was nary a
word, perhaps not surprisingly, about the problem of human rights
in Singapore.
More pointedly, Attorney General Chao Hick Tin (and, more
significantly, former appellate court judge) said in obvious
reference to my fellow activists and I, and our campaign for
freedoms of speech and assembly through Nonviolent Action: Of
course, some indefatigable critics have their own agenda to bring
into disrepute key public institutions
They are often encouraged by
foreigners in the name of human rights. We should be wary of this.
[emphasis mine]
Given all this, it is extremely difficult to see how dissenting
views on the topic of the rule of law in Singapore can surface
during your conference. The truth of the matter is that the
severity of the situation in Singapore warrants more than a general
discussion of the rule of law.
It is most discouraging that there have not been any comment by the
IBA on the human rights situation in Singapore even though there
has been a litany of reports and complaints through the years by
international organizations such as the United Nations, Amnesty
International, International Commission of Jurists, New York City
Bar Association, National Endowment for Democracy, Human Rights
Watch, Lawyers Rights Watch Canada, Liberal International, World
Movement for Democracy, Reporters Without Borders, Asian Human
Rights Commission, World Forum for Democratization in Asia,
Alliance for Reform and Democracy in Asia, the list goes on.
I took pains to enumerate for you in my opening letter the many
cases of human rights violations in my country in the hope that you
can verify the seriousness and incontrovertibility of the matter
for yourselves.
This is why we are appealing to the IBA to take a firm stand on the
long list of human rights abuses by the Singapore Government as you
have on several countries such as Zimbabwe, Ecuador, Turkey,
Malaysia and even Japan. There is no better opportunity than now
when the annual conference is slated for Singapore this year. It is
imperative that the IBA takes this opportunity to make clearly and
directly its concerns about the continued suppression of justice,
the rule of law and human rights in Singapore.
Sirs, we hope you do not misunderstand our intentions. We do not
for one moment presume to tell the IBA how to conduct its matters.
If it has come across that way, please accept our sincere
apologies. But when an esteemed organization such as the IBA comes
to Singapore and makes no pointed reference to the human rights
abuses of the countrys government, it is as good as the IBA
honouring the regime with its presence.
I note your point that the IBA has held conferences in countries
whose governments have little respect for human rights. But I also
note that your annual conferences have been, or will be, staged in
countries such as Spain, the United States, Australia, New Zealand,
Canada, South Africa, The Netherlands, etc. countries that,
although by no means free of human rights problems, do not have
governments that systematically and comprehensively crush their
peoples human rights.
While Singapore may be brimming with energy and finesse and
offering the perfect opportunity for both business and pleasure
as you highlight on your website, I hardly think that those are the
only, or even major, considerations that the IBA takes into account
when it chooses venues for its annual conferences. While Singapore
is designed to seduce the five senses of the unsuspecting
conference participants, I would like to think that an organization
like the IBA would rise above these and exercise its sixth sense
the sense of justice.
My colleagues and I continue to be imprisoned, fined, sued and made
bankrupt but we soldier on because we want justice and freedom for
our fellow citizens. To this end, we ask that you lend us a hand.
To quote Aung San Suu Kyi: Please use your liberty to help us gain
ours.
I await, most anxiously, your response.
Sincerely,
Chee Soon Juan
Secretary-General
Singapore Democratic Party
