International Commission of Jurists to S’pore Government – Stop harassment of human rights defender Jolovan Wham

4292

The ICJ today urged the Government of Singapore to end the harassment of human rights defender Jolovan Wham and to amend laws used to restrict his work and the work of other human rights defenders.

Jolovan Wham is to appear at a pre-trial conference on seven criminal charges today. Jolovan Wham is a well-known human rights defender in Singapore who previously worked for a group that advocates for the rights of migrant workers and plays a leading role against the death penalty and the promotion of freedom of expression.

“These charges are not only an impermissible attack on Jolovan Wham individually, but human rights work more generally in Singapore,” said Sam Zarifi, Secretary General of ICJ.

“It is an unmistakable message to other human rights defenders that they may face the same harassment and intimidation if they continue their work,” he added.

Jolovan Wham was charged in connection with facilitating a Skype conference with Hong Kong human rights defender, Joshua Wong Chi-Fung, on “civil disobedience and democracy in social change”.

Other charges relate to his organizing peaceful public assemblies, allegedly without permits, to protest the death penalty and to commemorate the day when 16 individuals were arrested by Singapore authorities in 1987 and detained without trial under the country’s Internal Security Act (ISA).

He was also charged for refusing to sign statements prepared by police authorities when he was taken in for investigation on 28 November 2017.

Most of the charges against Jolovan Wham were for alleged violations of Section 7 of the Public Order Act, which makes an offence the holding of a public assembly or public procession without a permit.

The ICJ considers that aspects of Section 7, particularly as applied to the charges against Jolvan Wham, may serve to impermissibly restrict the exercise of the right to freedom of peaceful assembly in Singapore, which is protected under international standards.

“Singapore should immediately act to amend the Public Order Act with a view to ensuring that it is consistent with international human rights law and standards, particularly as they relate to the exercise freedoms of expression and assembly,” Zarifi said.

Under international law and standards, prior authorization of assemblies is generally inconsistent with the right to freedom of peaceful assembly, except for narrow exceptions.

The UN Special Rapporteur on the rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and association, in a 2012 report, clarified that prior authorization should generally not be necessary.

At most, it should require notification that is not unduly burdensome, so as allow the authorities to facilitate the exercise of the right to peaceful assembly and to take measures to protect public safety and public order and the rights and freedoms of others.

The Declaration on the Right and Responsibility of Individuals, Groups and Organs of Society to Promote and Protect Universally Recognized Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (Declaration on Human Rights Defenders), emphasizes the right of human rights defenders “to meet or assemble peacefully” and “to study, discuss, form and hold opinions on the observance, both in law and in practice, of all human rights and fundamental freedoms, and through these and other appropriate means, to draft public attention to those matters.


The above is a press release by the International Commission of Jurists (ICJ). The ICJ is an international human rights non-governmental organization with a standing group of 60 eminent jurists (including senior judges, attorneys and academics) dedicated to ensuring respect for international human rights standards through the law.

25 COMMENTS

  1. The primary weapon of politics is the voice of the people. They know this and that is why they create such laws and invent the ISD.. To protect themselves…not the citizens.

  2. Make no mistake… SG is a democracy in name only. The state has overarching control in almost every facet of our lives deciding what you should be educated in, what kind of access to information you should have, what kind of jobs you should take up, what can or cannot be discussed in public, what is deemed acceptable or not….Etc. We’re as nanny as a nanny state can be. The state has also been extremely efficient in social engineering ensuring that what maybe universally acceptable does not apply in our context and the majority will accept it at face value. Maybe we should all take the blue pill and realise we’re all living in the matrix.

  3. If anyone here wants their rights to be defended, please step up and fight the fight with Jolovan. The rest of us don’t need this group of jurists to talk cock.

  4. Jolovan is nothing but a superstar-wannabe, he knowingly broke the law even after he was informed by the authority. I hope he serves time for playing with the laws and learn from it. For all of you haters, peace

Comments are closed.