Singapore's home minister slapped with suit by LFL

Kuala Lumpur-based human rights group Lawyers for Liberty (LFL) this morning filed a suit against Singapore Home Affairs Minister K Shanmugam (above) over his order for LFL to admit falsehoods in its recent blog post.

The originating summons was filed in the High Court in Kuala Lumpur by solicitors from the Daim & Gamany law firm and named LFL Sdn Bhd, its advisor N Surendran and director Melissa Sasidaran as the plaintiffs with Shanmugam as the sole defendant.

According to the suit, LFL is seeking a declaration by the court that Shanmugam's directive, made under Singapore's controversial fake news law, is null, void and cannot be enforced against the plaintiffs.

They are also seeking the court to declare that Shanmugam, or anyone acting under his authority, cannot take any action to enforce any provision under the republic's Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Act 2019 (Pofma) against the plaintiffs.

Speaking to reporters at the Kuala Lumpur Court Complex this morning, Surendran said they filed the suit because Shanmugam's action was an attempt to stifle the freedom of speech in Malaysia using their laws.

"I just want to add that the reason we brought the suit is, for us, against an attempt by Singapore to encroach upon, or stifle, to crack down on the freedom of speech in Malaysia.

"It is an attempt to reach out their tentacles and impose their own fake news law on Malaysians by issuing statements in Malaysia.

"Remember our Anti-Fake News Act. The Malaysian government has repealed it. Now they (Singapore) want to impose their fake news law against us," Surendran added.

LFL officials face arrests, jail under Singapore fake news law

Gurdial Singh, one of the solicitors representing LFL, told reporters that the Singapore minister's direction against LFL was an extraterritorial action and adversely affected the fundamental human rights of Malaysian citizens.

“He said LFL officials, including Surendran and Melissa Sasidaran are facing serious consequences from the directive issued by Shanmugam under Pofma.

“This was because they can be charged in Singapore's court and exposed to a fine, as well as up to five-year jail term, if LFL does not comply with Shanmugam's direction.

"This case raises some very interesting novel questions. Generally speaking, sovereign states and their ministers have immunity from being sued in the court of another country.

"However, in this case, what they (Singapore) are seeking to do has very serious consequences against our clients. They (Singapore) have threatened if correction is not done as per the direction by the minister of home affairs Singapore, they (LFL) are liable to be charged in Singapore court and exposed to a very hefty fine as well as a five-year imprisonment term.

"And Singapore has the ability to enforce, under our reciprocal agreement between the Singapore and Malaysian governments, the issue of warrants (of arrest) so on and so forth. So our clients are at very serious risks," Gurdial said.

He added that what Singapore was seeking against LFL in the order was a violation of another international law, which stipulates that a country cannot extend its laws to citizens of another country.

"What it means is that you are trying to apply your laws to the citizens of this country, to prevent them from exercising their fundamental rights that are given under our Constitution."

Gurdial said LFL had issued the press release in Malaysia, but Shanmugam, who accessed it in Singapore through the internet, is now claiming that it is a communication made in Singapore.

According to the lawyer, this issue has to be adjudicated as it will pose serious implications on Malaysians if it is left uncorrected.

Gurdial (below) gave an example of statements made by Malaysian ministers last year on the issue of its water agreement with Singapore, which the republic's administration disputed the facts.

While this happened before Pofma was enacted in Singapore, Gurdial questions what would happen if the law is to be allowed to be extended to Malaysia when Singapore disputes statements by Malaysian government ministers in the future.

"Are they saying that our prime minister and ministers have propagated false facts and that they can issue a direction, asking our government ministers to correct it, failing which they will be exposed to their laws?

"This is absolutely ridiculous. This is what we want to be adjudicated."

The civil suit today comes two days after Shanmugam issued LFL a "correction direction" pursuant to Pofma LFL's claim that unlawful methods had been employed in judicial executions at Singapore's Changi Prison.

LFL had claimed that the disclosure was made by a Singapore Prison Services officer to the group and that they had contacted the republic's administration about it but to no avail.

In a statement on its official portal later, the Singapore government claimed that LFL's allegations contained "false statements of fact".

It said that under Pofma, LFL is required to carry a "correction notice" on its online post with a note that their article contains falsehoods.

LFL had since slammed Shanmugam's action, calling it an attempt to muzzle critics and abusing the republic's fake news law.

‘S’pore more keen in silencing LFL than finding the truth’

Meanwhile, when asked on Singapore's decision to ban the LFL website from being accessed in the republic, Surendran said that it seems the Singapore government was more interested to silence the NGO than getting to the truth.

"Of course we find this very disappointing. Because from day one, even before we revealed publicly the method using the boot to break the neck, we have written to them and offered to give this evidence to them privately so something can be done about this method of execution.

"We had also issued a public statement that we are willing to cooperate with Singapore authorities to put an end to this practice. They ignored us and did not respond to our attempts. That's why we had no choice but to go public regarding their execution method.

"And now, they also decided to block our website. So it seems to me that the Singapore government is more interested in silencing us and keeping the lid on the truth about the method of execution in Changi Prison rather than getting to the truth regarding what is happening and take action," he said.

According to Surendran, who is a criminal lawyer, the Singapore government’s action also showed LFL that their decision to hide the identity of the whistleblower was right.

He also claimed that another Singapore Prison Service (SPS) officer, who is still on active duty, had come forward with similar testimony on the alleged execution method. - Mkini