91������̳

The Singaporean government is launching criminal investigations targeting activists from the Transformative Justice Collective (TJC), an anti-death penalty and social justice group, for posts it made on social media.

The government had already issued TJC with a Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Act (POFMA) order in December, forcing it to deactivate its website and social media pages for two years.

The government informed TJC on January 27 that it would face investigation under the POFMA for three social media posts made about death row prisoners’ rights.

Under the POFMA, the government can issue directions to organisations or individuals requiring them to add “correction notices” to their posts, or face further government censorship. TJC was issued with such directions between October and December, which it complied with.

Three TJC members, Kokila, Rocky and Sobi, were also individually summoned for the same offence.

If convicted, TJC could face a maximum penalty of S$500,000 (A$589,650), while Kokila, Rocky and Sobi may receive a $50,000 (A$58,9650) fine or five years imprisonment.

Additionally, Kokila is facing a $20,000 (A$23,586) fine or 12 months imprisonment for refusing to comply with a POFMA direction in October.

Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch and nine other organisations released a on January 16, demanding that the government end its harassment and intimidation of TJC. It said the POFMA orders are “an undue restriction on the right to freedom of expression, create a climate of fear and have the effect of stifling debates on the human rights concerns surrounding the use of the death penalty in Singapore”.

“The Government must immediately bring an end to the reprehensible campaign of harassment and intimidation against the human rights defenders from TJC, withdraw the direction orders and ensure the protection of the right to freedom of expression for all.”

Besides the POFMA censorship, TJC member Jolovan Wham is facing five charges of up to $5000 (A$5896) each, under the Public Order Act, for participating in public assemblies held for prisoners executed by the government.

Protesting is effectively illegal in Singapore, constrained to one small park. The government previously charged Wham with unlawful assembly in 2020 for holding a cardboard sign bearing a smiley face.

About 30 people showed up to support Wham at court on February 4. When called to the stand, he said: “Your honour, it is the state who should be on trial, not me. I didn’t kill anyone.”

TJC members posted a statement to their personal social media pages, which said that “numerous other TJC members and members of the public are currently under investigation for their participation in peaceful vigils”.

One of the vigils was for death row prisoner Syed Subhail bin Syed Zin, who was executed on January 23 with only four days’ notice, after being imprisoned for 14 years. Two more execution notices were handed out in the past week.

“We don’t even have the right to grieve, let alone protest, murders carried out in our names,” the statement said.

It said the POFMA is part of a “fast-growing arsenal of repressive laws that restrict speech, association and other civil liberties”, including the Public Order Act, Administration of Justice (Protection) Act, Foreign Interference Countermeasures Act and the newly proposed Maintenance of Racial Harmony Bill.

“These acts are designed to intimidate citizens into refraining from legitimate democratic expression … these are not just assaults on TJC, but on sacred democratic rights.

“The government is making these choices because they think they can get away with them. It is up to all of us to decide if they do indeed get away with this.”

The statement said that while the constant repression and punishment is “draining us of precious time, energy and resources”, there is a “growing mass of people in Singapore who do not believe that the death penalty and other brutal punishments keep us safe”.

“Despite state sanctions keeping us tied up at police stations and in court, forcing us to change outreach tactics, and intimidating our donors, we remain steadfast in our commitment to our work.”