Paul Murphy criticises PCA with Singapore over rights crackdown
Paul Murphy spoke against ratifying the Partnership and Cooperation Agreement (PCA) with Singapore, arguing it would reward a government that has recently passed repressive legislation. He urged that Ireland should not ratify the PCA while citing multiple human rights concerns and the linked investment protection deal.
Opposition to PCA ratification
Paul Murphy said ratifying the PCA 15 days after Singapore enacted the Foreign Interference Countermeasures Act would send the wrong signal. He cited statements from Emerlyn Gill of Amnesty International and Phil Robertson of Human Rights Watch condemning the new law.
Concerns over the Foreign Interference Act
Murphy outlined what the Foreign Interference Countermeasures Act permits - forcing social media platforms and internet service providers to hand over user data, blocking content and removing applications deemed anti-state. He quoted Amnesty calling the law "a brutal attack on the rights to freedom of expression and association" and referenced Human Rights Watch's view that the law worsens existing restrictions on fundamental freedoms.
Broader human rights record cited
He detailed other aspects of Singapore's record raised in his speech - mandatory capital punishment for certain drug offences, routine corporal punishment including caning, and the criminalisation of consensual sexual relations between men under Criminal Code Section 377A. He noted strict rules on associations and registration, the Registrar of Societies' refusal to register LGBTQ groups, prohibitions on positive depictions of LGBTQ lives by the Media Development Authority, and an Advertising Standards Agency action to remove the phrase "supporting the freedom to love" from a festival ad.
Investment protection and investor courts
Murphy warned that the PCA is linked to an EU-Singapore Investment Protection Agreement containing investor court provisions. He described these provisions as creating a permanent parallel legal system for corporations to sue states over alleged interference with profits - similar to concerns raised about CETA and TTIP. He recalled the Tánaiste's admission in committee that under CETA a foreign company could sue the State over rent controls, and said the same exposure would apply to companies linked to Singapore.
Conclusion and recommendation
For these reasons Murphy argued the Dáil should not ratify the PCA with Singapore, saying the agreement would amount to encouragement of repressive policies and expose the State to corporate legal challenges. He urged rejection of ratification while these human rights and investment concerns remain.
We publish thousands of recordings to make Irish politics transparent and resistant to manipulation. Spotted an error? Report it — together we are building a reliable archive of Irish politics.
We are being asked to ratify the Partnership and Cooperation Agreement with Singapore today. Just 15 days ago, Singapore passed the Foreign Interference Countermeasures Act. It is legislation which allows the authorities to force social media platforms and internet service providers to hand over user data, to block content and to remove applications that share information considered by the authorities to be anti-state. Emerlyn Gill, Amnesty International's Deputy Regional Director for Research, has said the passing of Singapore's Foreign Interference Law constitutes a brutal attack on the rights to freedom of expression and association, creating yet another tool that can be used arbitrarily by the authorities to stifle government critics and crush dissent in the country. A brutal attack on the rights of freedom of expression and association. And the government wants us to send a signal 15 days later, no problem, we are happy to ratify a PCA with Singapore. Last week, Phil Robertson, Deputy Asia Director of Human Rights Watch, commented, it is hard to believe that the Singapore government could make the laws against fundamental freedoms even worse than they already are, but the Foreign Interference Act manages to do that. Failure to withdraw the law would reinforce Singapore's international reputation as a human rights disaster, both online and off. You would presume so, but then the actions of the Irish government and the EU in pushing ahead with this PCA with Singapore suggests that trade and profit are being put ahead of solidarity and human rights by the EU and the Irish government. In Singapore, capital punishment is mandatory for certain drug offences and is in effect for a wide range of other crimes. The use of corporal punishment, including caning, continues to be a standard practice within the Singapore criminal justice system and in many instances is mandatory. Singapore also continues to criminalise consensual sexual relations between men under Criminal Code Section 377A. Associations of more than 10 people are required to register with the government and the Registrar of Societies has broad authority to deny registration if he determines the group could be, quote, prejudicial to public peace, welfare or good order. The Societies Act makes explicit reference to gender, sexual orientation and human rights as grounds for denying the registration of a group. The Registrar has refused to allow any LGBTQ organisation to register as a society on the grounds that, quote, it is contrary to the public interest to grant legitimacy to the promotion of homosexual activities or viewpoints. So, on the one hand, rightly, you have the European Commission criticising the Polish government for precisely doing that, for granting legitimacy, for seeking to outlaw LGBT in whole areas of Poland and being rightly criticised by the European Commission, but on the other hand, proceeding to ratify a PCA with a country which proceeds to do this and continues to do this. The State-owned Media Development Authority effectively prohibits all positive depictions of LGBTQ lives on television or radio. In June 2017, the Advertising Standards Agency asked the shopping centre to remove the phrase supporting the freedom to love from a promotional ad for a 2017 Pink Dot Festival, on the grounds that, quote, it may affect public sensitivities. So, we have been asked to ratify a partnership and cooperation agreement with a government and a State with this track record that is not only appalling, but is getting worse by the week. In effect, this will be an encouragement to continue along these tracks. It is also worth mentioning that the PCA is part and parcel and comes together with the EU Singapore Investment Protection Agreement. The latter includes notorious investment court system provisions and, as with CETA and the attempted TTIP before it, these provisions will establish a permanent, institutionalised, alternative legal system, a parallel justice system set up exclusively for corporations, enabling them to sue the Irish State, not in the Irish courts but in special, parallel courts, basically for anything that interferes with their right to profit, which can be determined as indirect expropriation. The TANISTA, Leo Varadkar, recently admitted to me in committee that if we ratified CETA, the Canadian company which owns IRS REIT could sue the Irish State in a special investor court if we introduce further rent controls. The EU Singapore Investment Protection Agreement would mean that the same would apply to any Singapore company or any company which is able to say, oh, we have a headquarters or a base in Singapore. For all those reasons, we should not be ratifying this agreement. Thank you.
Thank you for downloading 🙏
If you publish this material on social media, we would be very grateful if you tagged VideoParliament. It helps us reach more people and keep building a transparent archive of Irish politics.
