Select Committee chairman Charles Chong revealed that it had on Mar 5 invited HRW to give oral evidence at the hearings on any of the eight hearing dates.
On Mar 8, HRW replied that it was willing to send a representative to be present on Mar 23.
The Parliament Secretariat asked on the same day if HRW could appear on Mar 27 instead, to which HRW replied that its representative would only be available to give evidence on Mar 23.
On Mar 13, the Parliament Secretariat confirmed that Mar 23 was available and informed HRW that its representative should be able to deal with questions that might arise, including those on HRW’s report.
But the next day, HRW said its "staff member best able to address these issues has made other travel plans that cannot be changed".
HRW also offered to submit written evidence, or to meet Government officials in Singapore or London.
The Parliament Secretariat replied on the same day to reiterate the offer of appearing on any of the hearing dates.
When HRW on Mar 15 again indicated its unavailability, it was told that video-conferencing could be arranged on any of the hearing dates so its officers would not have to travel.
"It was also pointed out to HRW that the Select Committee had received a submission which was highly critical of the HRW report and considered the report to be full of falsehoods," the committee said in a statement.
And the next day, the Parliament Secretariat sent another email offering to fund the cost of flying in HRW’s representative.
However on Mar 19, HRW maintained that it was unable to participate.
It also did not take up the offer of video-conferencing.
"For the record, our invitation to HRW still stands should HRW decide that it is willing to give oral defence to defend its report," Mr Chong said.
The Law Ministry also weighed in, calling HRW's refusal to appear before the committee "disappointing".
"The Ministry of Law notes that serious allegations have been made to the Select Committee, against HRW and its work," it said in a statement.
"Appearing before the Select Committee would give HRW the chance to vindicate itself and set out its views."
But its initial willingness to appear before the committee evaporated once it was told that its representative should be prepared to answer questions about the report "Kill the Chicken to Scare the Monkeys – Suppression of Free Expression and Assembly in Singapore."
“Human Rights Watch’s stance is disappointing, but not surprising. It has a pattern of issuing biased and untruthful statements about Singapore. It knows that its report will not withstand any scrutiny, and has therefore chosen not to come to Singapore to publicly defend its views.... by its conduct, (it) has shown that it cannot be taken seriously as a commentator or interlocutor on issues relating to Singapore,” MinLaw said.
“Human Rights Watch’s stance is disappointing, but not surprising. It has a pattern of issuing biased and untruthful statements about Singapore. It knows that its report will not withstand any scrutiny, and has therefore chosen not to come to Singapore to publicly defend its views.... by its conduct, (it) has shown that it cannot be taken seriously as a commentator or interlocutor on issues relating to Singapore,” MinLaw said.
https://
No comments:
Post a Comment