[ad_1]
SINGAPORE – The question of whether a Facebook article has outraged the courts depends on how an average person interpreted the message, not what the announcer meant, pleaded Tuesday, July 17, a hearing Public against the civilian activist Jolovan Wham and the opposition politician John Tan.
million. Wham reportedly scorned in April that Singapore's courts are not as independent as Malaysia in cases with political implications. The remarks accompanied a link to an article online: "Malaysiakini launches a constitutional challenge against the anti-Fake News Act"
The Attorney General's Office (AGC) has increased the number of lawsuits against him
. Politician John Tan Liang Joo said on Facebook that AGC shares have confirmed the veracity of Mr. Wham's comment. Tan was also summoned to the Supreme Court on Tuesday. He did not come because of confusion, but his lawyer defended him in his absence.
million. Wham and Mr. Tan did not take their messages on Facebook.
Cases against the duo are the first to be subject to new contempt laws that took effect last October under the Administration of Justice (Protection) Act of 2016
Mr. Wham said that there was "no conceivable reason" to singularize the independence of the Singapore judiciary. , who added that these remarks implied for an average person that if the constitutional challenge in Malaysia was to occur in Singapore, she would fail because of a lack of judicial independence in the present case.
million. Wham had therefore "attacked the impartiality and integrity of Singapore's judicial system," he said.
Mr. Wham's main defense Tuesday – supported by his lawyers Eugene Thuraisingam and Choo Zheng Xi – was that he had never intended to suggest that the Singapore courts were not independent . He simply compared the two judicial systems, which is a fair criticism, they added.
million. Thuraisingam said Mr. Wham had seen the World Economic Forum's rankings on judicial independence and felt that it was legitimate to compare the legal systems of the two countries. In addition, Mr. Choo argued that Mr. Wham is a layman whose profile is "of a different tone and tone" from those who have already been tried for contempt of court, such as the journalist Alan Shadrake and sociopolitical blogger Alex Au
. On this point, Judge Woo Bih Li asked if people would take Mr. Wham more seriously since he considers himself an activist. Mr. Choo responded that the position only resulted in 29 "likes" or other users' reactions in April.
million. Wham, social worker at the Community Action Network and founding executive director of Home, a local non-governmental organization. Defense lawyers have also argued that the Administration of Justice (Protection) Act violates the constitutional right to freedom of expression because it effectively criminalizes speeches that have little chance of compromising the right to freedom of expression. freedom of expression. In response, Mr. Ng stated that Parliament was empowered to enact laws restricting freedom of speech to protect against contempt of court. He pointed out that the report of the World Economic Forum, mentioned by Mr. Thuraisingam, ranked Singapore's judiciary above that of Malaysia.
In his comments on behalf of Mr. Tan, Mr. Thuraisingam stated that his statement did not go to the courts, but to AGC.
Both cases were returned to a later date of judgment.
[ad_2]
Source link
