Cyber-crime laws – Asia Pacific Report

Landmark PNG Supreme Court ruling toughens cybercrime law

Pacific Media Watch — Mon, 05 Aug 2024 13:23:23 +0000

People accused under Papua New Guinea’s Cybercrime Code Act may not always find free speech protection offered by the Constitution.

In a landmark decision, the Supreme Court has ruled that this law does not contravene the provisions of Section 46 which provides for freedom of expression.

The decision is a serious warning to offending users of social media and the internet that they might find themselves with fines of up to K1 million (NZ$430,000), or jail terms of between 15 and 25 years.

READ MORE: Other PNG freedom of speech reports

A Supreme Court panel comprising Chief Justice Sir Gibbs Salika and Justices Les Gavara-Nanu, David Cannings, Kingsley Allen David and Derek Hartshorn made this determination in Waigani on Friday.

The constitutional reference was made by National Court judge Teresa Berrigan during the trial of Kila Aoneka Wari, who was charged with criminal defamation under section 21 (2) of the Cybercrime Code Act 2016.

Judge Berrigan then referred for Supreme Court interpretation on whether Section 21 contravened the Freedom of Expression provision of the National Constitution.

Reading the judgment on behalf of his fellow judges, Sir Gibbs said: “We (Supreme Court) consider there is a clear and present danger to public safety, public order and public welfare if publication of defamatory material by use of electronic systems or devices were allowed to be made without restriction, including by criminal sanction.”

Sir Gibbs said the court had determined that the regulation and restriction of the exercises of the right to freedom of expression imposed by section 21 (2) of the Cybercrime Code is “reasonably justifiable in a democratic society having a proper respect for the rights and dignity of mankind.”

‘Necessary’ for public safety
Sir Gibbs said the court was satisfied that the first, second and third interveners had discharged the burden in showing that section 21 (2) of the Cybercrime Code complied with the three requirements of section 38 (1) of the Constitution in that:

FIRST, it has been made and certified in accordance with section 38 (2) of the Constitution.
SECONDLY, it restricts the exercise of the right to freedom and expression and publication that is “necessary” for the purpose of giving effect to the public interest in public safety, public order and public welfare; and
THIRDLY, it is a law that is reasonably justifiable in a democratic society having a proper respect to the rights and dignity of mankind.

“We conclude that no, section 21 (2) of the Cybercrime Code Act is not invalid. Although it (Cybercrime Code Act) restricts the exercise of the right to freedom of expression and publication in section 46 of the Constitution it is a law that complies with Section 38 of the Constitution and the restriction it imposes is permissible under section 46 (1) (C) of the Constitution.

The questions that Justice Berrigan referred to the Supreme Court were:

DOES section 21(2) of the cybercrime Code Act regulate or restrict the right of freedom of expression and publication under section 46 of the Constitution?
IF yes to question 1, does section 21 (2) of the Cybercrime Code Act comply with section 38 of the Constitution?
IS section 21(20 of the Cybercrime Code Act) invalid for being inconsistent with section 46 of the Constitution?

The court answered yes to questions and one and two and answered no to question three.

The court also ordered that each intervener will bear their own costs.

Wari is the fourth intervener in the proceedings.

Others are Attorney-General Pila Niningi (first intervener), acting public prosecutor Raphael Luman (second intervener), Public Solicitor Leslie Mamu (third intervener).

Section 21(2) of the Cybercrime Code Act is the law on defamatory publication.

It makes any defamatory publication using any electronic device as an offence with a penalty of K25,000 to K1 million fine, or imprisonment not exceeding 15 to 25 years.

Boura Goru Kila is a reporter for PNG’s The National. Republished with permission.

PNG law change empowers police to use lethal force in kidnapping, domestic terrorism

APR editor — Sat, 24 Jun 2023 00:35:34 +0000

By Miriam Zarriga in Port Moresby

Papua New Guinea police will be able to use lethal force to deal with crimes that come under “domestic terrorism” through the amendments to the Criminal Code Act.

Police Commissioner David Manning said this as the Royal Papua New Guinea Constabulary (RPNGC) continue to work for stronger law enforcement powers to fight against domestic terrorists causing havoc in some parts of the country, such as in the mountainous Bosavi region.

Commissioner Manning said that the kidnappings and held-for-ransom cases were part of “domestic terrorism”.

“The amendments establish clear legal process for the escalated use of up to lethal force, powers of search and seizure, and detention for acts of domestic terrorism.

“It is high time that we call these criminals as domestic terrorists, because that is what they are and we need harsher measures to bring them to justice one way or another,” he said.

“Domestic terrorism includes the deliberate use of violence against people and communities to murder, injure and intimidate, including kidnapping and ransom, and the destruction of properties.

“An accurate definition of domestic terrorism also includes hate crimes, including tribal fight and sorcery and related violence.”

New crime trend
A new crime trend has emerged in PNG with kidnappings and held-for-ransom cases happening over the last six years with more than six kidnappings and ransom demands occurring since 2014.

However, it took the kidnapping of the New Zealand-born Australian professor and the demand for ransom this year to bring to light several years of continued kidnappings and demand for ransoms on expatriates and locals working at logging camps and elsewhere in Western province and the Highlands region.

Localised kidnappings have also continued with successful returns of victims particularly children.

Other domestic terrorism crimes include:

Organised crimes;
Weapons smuggling;
Illegal drug production and distribution; and
People trafficking.

“The RPNGC, through the Minister for Internal Security, is putting forward amendments to the Criminal Code Act that will strengthen police capacity to search, investigate, intercept and prosecute people and groups involved in domestic terrorism,” Manning said.

Commissioner Manning said the way criminals operated had changed, particularly in the use of information and communications technologies, and police powers needed to be strengthened.

“The amendments will enable more effective lawful communications interception of channels and electronic devices used by domestic terrorists,” he said.

Criminal internet use
“Many of our laws do not take sufficient account of the way criminals, including domestic terrorists, use the internet and phone systems in carrying out violent crimes, and this is a key area for reform.”

Commissioner Manning said the new amendments would build on previous related legislation, and go even further to tip the balance of justice and public safety away from the criminals.

“Amendments have been made to the Criminal Code, such as in 2022 by the government to strengthen laws against so-called glassman or glassmeri [people with the power to accuse women and men of witchcraft and sorcery] and the vile crimes they commit — especially against women, children and the elderly.

“The amendments will further improve law and order co-operation and collaboration with international partners through training, equipment, technical advice and the use of new technologies and resources.

“Having interoperability with domestic and international partners requires the proper and recognised definition of a domestic terrorist and acts of domestic terrorism, as will be clear in the amendments.”

According to information put together by the PNG Post-Courier since 2014 there have been a string of kidnappings that have occurred with a report of K300,000 (NZ$140,000) paid for the return of six expatriates held by armed men allegedly from the Southern Highlands.

The latest kidnapping saw 17 girls, two of whom were married, taken by armed men in the Bosavi LLG, also in Southern Highlands. They were later released with about K3000 (NZ$1400) paid and several pigs offered to the kidnappers.

Police have remained quiet with Post-Courier understanding that investigations continue to be carried out in the latest kidnapping incident and the case of the abducted professor and local researchers.

Miriam Zarriga is a PNG Post-Courier reporter. Republished with permission.

Calling out China for cyberattacks is risky — but a lawless digital world is even riskier

APR editor — Tue, 20 Jul 2021 23:08:03 +0000

ANALYSIS: By Alexander Gillespie, University of Waikato

The multi-country condemnation of cyber-attacks by Chinese state-sponsored agencies is a sign of increasing frustration at recent behaviour. But it also masks the real problem — international law isn’t strong or coherent enough to deal with this growing threat.

The coordinated announcement by several countries, including the US, UK, Australia and New Zealand, echoes the most recent threat assessment from the US intelligence community: cyber threats from nation states and their surrogates will remain acute for the foreseeable future.

Joining the chorus against China may be diplomatically risky for New Zealand and others, and China has already described the claims as “groundless and irresponsible”. But there is no doubt the problem is real.

The latest report from New Zealand’s Government Communications Security Bureau (GCSB) recorded 353 cyber security incidents in the 12 months to the middle of 2020, compared with 339 incidents in the previous year.

Given the focus is on potentially high-impact events targeting organisations of national significance, this is likely only a small proportion of the total. But the GCSB estimated state-sponsored attacks accounted for up to 30 percent of incidents recorded in 2019-20.

Since that report, more serious incidents have occurred, including attacks on the stock-exchange and Waikato hospital. The attacks are becoming more sophisticated and inflicting greater damage.

Globally, there are warnings that a major cyberattack could be as deadly as a weapon of mass destruction. The need to de-escalate is urgent.

Global solutions missing
New Zealand would be relatively well-prepared to cope with domestic incidents using criminal, privacy and even harmful digital communications laws. But most cybercrime originates overseas, and global solutions don’t really exist.

The government says it has uncovered evidence of Chinese state-sponsored cyber attacks in New Zealand.https://t.co/wB5Q8M4lwO

— RNZ (@radionz) July 19, 2021

In theory, the attacks can be divided into two types — those by criminals and those by foreign governments. In reality, the line between the two is blurred.

Dealing with foreign criminals is slightly easier than combating attacks by other governments, and Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern has recognised the need for a global effort to fight this kind of cybercrime.

To that end, the government recently announced New Zealand was joining the Council of Europe’s Convention on Cybercrime, a global regime signed by 66 countries based on shared basic legal standards, mutual assistance and extradition rules.

Unfortunately, some of the countries most often suspected of allowing international cybercrime to be committed from within their borders have not signed, meaning they are not bound by its obligations.

That includes Russia, China and North Korea. Along with several other countries not known for their tolerance of an open, free and secure internet, they are trying to create an alternative international cybercrime regime, now entering a drafting process through the United Nations.

‘Groundless, irresponsible’: China fires back at NZ after cyber attack accusation https://t.co/oGSOMtFdXT

— Newshub Politics (@NewshubPolitics) July 19, 2021

Cyberattacks as acts of war
Dealing with attacks by other governments (as opposed to criminals) is even harder.

Only broad principles exist, including that countries refrain from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, and that they should behave in a friendly way towards one another. If one is attacked, it has an inherent right of self-defence.

Malicious state-sponsored cyber activity involving espionage, ransoms or breaches of privacy might qualify as unfriendly and in bad faith, but they are not acts of war.

However, cyberattacks directed by other governments could amount to acts of war if they cause death, serious injury or significant damage to the targeted state. Cyberattacks that meddle in foreign elections may, depending on their impact, dangerously undermine peace.

And yet, despite these extreme risks, there is no international convention governing state-based cyberattacks in the ways the Geneva Conventions cover the rules of warfare or arms control conventions limit weapons of mass destruction.

Drawing a red line on cybercrime … US President Joe Biden meets Russian President Vladimir Putin in Geneva in June. Image: The Conversation/GettyImages

Risks of retaliation
The latest condemnation of Chinese-linked cyberattacks notwithstanding, the problem is not going away.

At their recent meeting in Geneva, US President Joe Biden told his Russian counterpart, Vladimir Putin, the US would retaliate against any attacks on its critical infrastructure. A new US agency aimed at countering ransomware attacks would respond in “unseen and seen ways”, according to the administration.

Such responses would be legal under international law if there were no alternative means of resolution or reparation, and could be argued to be necessary and proportionate.

Also, the response can be unilateral or collective, meaning the US might call on its friends and allies to help. New Zealand has said it is open to the proposition that victim states can, in limited circumstances, request assistance from other states to apply proportionate countermeasures against someone acting in breach of international law.

A drift towards lawlessness
But only a month after Biden drew his red line with Putin, another massive ransomware attack crippled hundreds of service providers across 17 countries, including New Zealand schools and kindergartens.

The Russian-affiliated ransomware group REvil that was probably behind the attacks mysteriously disappeared from the internet a few weeks later.

Things are moving fast and none of it is very reassuring. In an interconnected world facing a growing threat from cyberattacks, we appear to be drifting away from order, stability and safety and towards the darkness of increasing lawlessness.

The coordinated condemnation of China by New Zealand and others has considerably upped the ante. All parties should now be seeking a rules-based international solution or the risk will only grow.

Dr Alexander Gillespie is professor of law, University of Waikato. This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons licence. Read the original article.

Lawyer Clooney welcomes dismissal of second libel suit against Maria Ressa

Pacific Media Watch — Mon, 14 Jun 2021 19:00:38 +0000

By Camille Elemia in Manila

Human rights lawyers Amal Clooney and Caoilfhionn Gallagher, who lead the international defence legal team, have call on the international community to ensure that all charges against Philippines journalist and editor Maria Ressa are dropped.

The legal team of Rappler CEO Ressa welcomed the recent dismissal of the second cyber libel charge filed against her.

Clooney said Makati Regional Trial Court Branch 148 Judge Andres Soriano was correct in dismissing the “absurd case”, reports Rappler.

Clooney called on authorities to drop the other charges filed against Ressa and overturn her 2020 conviction of cyber libel, a decision that is still pending with the Court of Appeals.

“One down, eight to go. Prosecutors in the Philippines were right to drop this absurd case, and Judge Soriano was right to dismiss it with prejudice,” she said in a statement.

“But since none of the cases against Maria have any merit, the authorities should also drop the other prosecutions and overturn her criminal conviction for libel.”

UK lawyer Caoilfhionn Gallagher, co-leader of the team, also lauded the dismissal of the case and thanked Ressa’s supporters for fighting the “nonsensical charges”.

Stemmed from Ressa’s tweets
The second cyber libel complaint stemmed from Ressa’s tweets, which were screenshots of an old newspaper article about the complainant, businessman Wilfredo Keng.

“Ms Ressa should never have faced an arrest warrant, the threat of imprisonment, and the stress and expense of defending herself over an innocuous tweet and screengrab,” Gallagher said.

“This [month’s] good news marks one small battle victory in a far larger and longer war.

“Ressa already faces up to six years imprisonment following her conviction on baseless charges last year, and she continues to be threatened by the Philippines authorities with decades more in prison,” Gallagher said.

Clooney and Gallagher called on the European Union and the international community to ensure that all charges against Ressa are dropped.

“She is a journalist who is being pursued for her journalism and she should be allowed to get back to work without further harassment. If not, we should see concrete action by the United States, the EU, and the group of states that form the Media Freedom Coalition,” Clooney said.

Gallagher said the Philippines benefits from a preferential trading agreement with the EU, on the basis that it complies with international human rights standards.

Continuing barrage
“This continuing barrage of cases against Ms Ressa, punishing her for her work and attempting to silence investigative journalists in the Philippines, makes a mockery of this. The EU and the international community must now press the authorities to ensure that all charges against Ms Ressa are dropped and all other proceedings against her halted,” Gallagher said.

The #HoldTheLine Coalition, composed of 80 international media, human rights, and advocacy groups, also welcomed the dismissal of the case and urged President Rodrigo Duterte and his administration to follow suit and drop all eight remaining cases and charges against the award-winning journalist.

Ressa faces eight other charges before the Court of Tax Appeals (CTA), the Pasig City Regional Trial Court, and the Manila Regional Trial Court.

Republished from Rappler with permission.

Myanmar’s junta plans draconian cyber-security law to stifle dissent

Pacific Media Watch — Fri, 12 Feb 2021 03:19:11 +0000

Pacific Media Watch newsdesk

Reporters Without Borders (RSF) has condemned a proposed cyber-security law in Myanmar that would organise online censorship and force social media platforms to share private information about their users when requested by the authorities.

This would violate the confidentiality of journalists’ data and sources, and the public’s right to reliable information, says the Paris-based media freedom watchdog RSF.

The draft law, which has just been leaked, is clearly designed to prevent pro-democracy activists from continuing to organise the demonstrations that have been taking place every day in cities across Myanmar in response to the military coup on February 1.

READ MORE: US slaps new sanctions on Myanmar generals for role in coup

The State Administration Council – as the new military junta euphemistically calls itself – sent a copy of the proposed law to internet access and online service providers on February 9.

And the junta is expected to make it public on February 15.

The draft law, which RSF has seen, would require online platforms and service providers operating in Myanmar to keep all user data in a place designated by the government for three years.

‘Causing hate, destabilisation’
Article 29 would give the government the right to order an account’s “interception, removal, destruction or cessation” in the event of any content “causing hate or disrupting unity, stabilisation and peace,” any “disinformation,” or any comment going “against any existing law.”

This extremely vague wording would give the government considerable interpretative leeway and would in practice allow it to ban any content it disliked and to prosecute its author.

Article 30, on the other hand, is very specific about the data that online service providers must hand over to the government when requested: the user’s name, IP address, phone number, ID card number and physical address.

Any violation of the law would be punishable by up to three years in prison and a fine of 10 million kyats (6200 euros). Those convicted on more than one count would, of course, serve the corresponding jail terms consecutively.

RSF submission
“The provisions of this cyber-security law pose a clear threat to the right of Myanmar’s citizens to reliable information and to the confidentiality of journalists’ and bloggers’ data,” said Daniel Bastard, the head of RSF Asia-Pacific desk.

“We urge digital actors operating in Myanmar, starting with Facebook, to refuse to comply with this shocking attempt to bring them to heel. This junta has absolutely no democratic legitimacy and it would be highly damaging for platforms to submit too its tyrannical impositions.”

Facebook has nearly 25 million users in Myanmar – 45 percent of the population. Three days after the February 1 coup, the junta suddenly blocked access to Facebook, Twitter and Instagram.

But many of the country’s citizens have been using VPNs (virtual private networks) to circumvent the censorship.

The proposed law’s leak has coincided with social media reports of the arrival of many Chinese technicians tasked with setting up an internet barrier and cybersurveillance system of the kind operating in China, which is an expert in this domain.

Earlier this week, RSF reported the comments of several journalists who have been trying to cover the protests against the military coup, and who said that press freedom has been set back 10 years in the space of 10 days, back to where it was before the start of the democratisation process.

Myanmar is ranked 139th out of 180 countries in RSF’s 2020 World Press Freedom Index.

NZ’s cyber security centre warns more attacks likely after stock market outages

APR editor — Tue, 01 Sep 2020 22:20:53 +0000

ANALYSIS: By Dave Parry, Auckland University of Technology

The Government Communications Security Bureau (GCSB) has issued a warning to all New Zealand businesses to be prepared for cyber attacks, following almost a week of daily attacks on the New Zealand stock exchange (NZX).

The attacks have caused outages, sometimes for hours, of NZX’s public-facing website since Tuesday last week. This week, it continued trading under a new arrangement that allows it to post information to alternative platforms.

The attacks are part of worldwide malicious cyber activity and the government will likely share information via Interpol and government-to-government links, including the intelligence alliance know as Five Eyes.

READ MORE: Australia is under sustained cyber attack, warns the government. What’s going on, and what should businesses do?

The type of attack is known as a Distributed Denial of Service (DDoS). The attacker infects large numbers, often thousands or even millions, of computers with a virus that allows the attacker to instruct the infected computer – known as a “bot” – to send thousands of requests for data to the target.

In effect, this means millions of attempts to access a website at the same time. The website being attacked cannot respond to each one quickly enough so either it simply stops responding or responds to some but not all data requests.

Some people get the most up-to-date page and others don’t.

This is particularly damaging for financial information sites such as a stock market. They have a legal duty to give equal access to different users. They would normally shut down and stop trading for a while rather than allow some people to get information before others.

These attacks are not designed to steal data or do insider trading. They are generally set up to demand ransom from the victims, usually asking for thousands of dollars paid in bitcoin or another cryptocurrency which is effectively untraceable. Governments, terrorist organisations, political groups and even pranksters have also been known to use these attacks.

DDoS software is available on the dark web but also not very difficult to write. In many cases the people owning the bots will not be aware anything strange is happening.

The current attacks
Multi-day attacks have been rare but are becoming more common. The size of these attacks, including how many bots are used and their capacity to send requests, has been increasing.

This map shows the number of global attacks on August 15. Image: CC BY-SA

Such multi-day attacks are potentially risky for the attackers as the defence team will be analysing the attacks, often using artificial intelligence tools, and should be able to respond more quickly to block illegitimate requests.

The defence against such attacks is based on being able to cope with the large number of requests, either by moving the website to a cloud-based system that can increase capacity quickly, or identifying bot requests and filtering them out by setting up a “whitelist” of legitimate users and excluding others.

This is normally done by firewalls at the level of each attacked entity, the internet service provider or, as in the case of New Zealand, at a country’s electronic border (for example, the Southern Cross trans-Pacific network of communications cables).

If an attack is coming from inside New Zealand, security software on the bot computer can normally remove the infection with up-to-date anti-virus software. Internet service providers can also detect this activity and may warn users or disconnect the infected machine until it is cleaned. But in this case, the attacks are coming from outside New Zealand.

The covid-19 pandemic means millions of people are working from home around the world, outside their normal corporate security, often using the family computer. Some people may be less careful about downloading software, particularly on illegal streaming sites, and may be using free or unsecured wifi networks. This makes infecting computers to turn them into bots much easier.

How to repond
Assuming this is a criminal gang, financial institutes are an attractive target. They rely on availability of service and potentially have money to pay ransoms.

In New Zealand, disaster management and recovery has tended to focus on responses to natural hazards rather than criminal activity. New Zealand does not have local cloud providers and expanding capacity is more difficult.

Even if NZX won’t pay a ransom, this attack is “advertising” for the criminal gangs that may act as “subcontactors” to larger criminal organisations.

The government’s aim will not be to catch the perpetrators in the short term but to share information on how to block the attacks. Normally the response is effective, but it can take some time to analyse details.

At the same time, other attacks (for example phishing to steal data) may use the confusion caused by the DDoS attacks to target potential victims. Organisations should encourage people to update their security software and remain vigilant.

In the future, as the internet of things (IoT) becomes more widespread, many billions of new devices will be connected to the internet. Security standards and forensic capability (storing data to analyse attacks) are not universal and there is a danger that these attacks will become more common and larger in scale.

Defence is possible
But defence is possible and both technical and policy approaches are getting better. Artificial intelligence tools for rapidly analysing attacks are the focus of research.

Support for governments in vulnerable areas is also increasing to enforce international agreements, clarify local law and share information between network providers. For example, Macau recently introduced a much tougher cyber security law which seems to have been very effective.

Dr Dave Parry is head of the Department of Computer Science, Auckland University of Technology. This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons licence. Read the original article.

PNG parliamentarian faces cyber crime charges over K250m Ok Tedi claim

Pacific Media Watch — Thu, 20 Aug 2020 22:15:31 +0000

By Trevor Wahune in Port Moresby

North Fly MP James Donald yesterday made an appearance in Papua New Guinea’s Waigani Committal Court to face cyber crime charges for allegedly publishing defamatory materials against a lawyer and the management team of OK Tedi River Development Foundation.

Magistrate Garry Unjo, reading the MP’s charges, said Donald, from Gasuke village in North Fly district in Western Province, had allegedly published defamatory materials against Young and Williams principal lawyer Greg Sheppard and Ok Tedi River Development Foundation (OTRDL) chairman Steven Bagari, and Samson Jubi.

READ MORE: Cybercrime and cybersecurity in PNG

Donald was charged with a count each of attempting to pervert the court of justice, and publishing defamatory materials.

Police alleged that Donald had posted a false and misleading defamatory article titled “Where is the money?” on his personal Facebook page on July 26, alleging that Sheppard and Bagari had misappropriated more than K250 million ($110 million) in funds that belonged to the Ok Tedi landowners.

Other articles also signed and approved for release by him were allegedly published in the two daily newspapers, the PNG Post-Courier and The National.

According to the police summary of facts, Donald had allegedly posted defamatory materials against Sheppard, Bagari and Jubi intentionally to tarnish the reputation of the three men without factual evidence to support his claims on Facebook.

Police further alleged that Donald’s defamatory publications were made despite him knowing there was a writ of summons, filed by Young and Williams Lawyers on behalf of OTFRDL in the High Court of Singapore (HC/S628/2020 between OTFRDL and others, Vs James Donald).

His alleged accomplice, Phillip Baindridge, is the chairman of PNG Sustainable Development Progamme (PNGSDP).

The summons sought to retrieve funds worth more than K250 million (NZ$110 million) back to PNG and put into the control of foundation and the people affected.

Trevor Wahune is a University of Papua New Guinea journalism graduate and reporter on the PNG Post-Courier.

Manila court upholds Ressa cyber libel conviction, cites new 15-year period

Pacific Media Watch — Mon, 27 Jul 2020 03:56:00 +0000

By Lian Buan in Manila

Manila Judge Rainelda Estacio-Montesa has denied the motion for partial reconsideration filed by Rappler journalists, and upheld the cyber libel conviction of Rappler CEO and executive editor Maria Ressa and former researcher-writer Reynaldo Santos Jr.

“In view of the foregoing, the Motion for Partial Reconsideration filed by Accused Reynaldo Santos Jr and Maria Angelita Ressa is denied for lack of merit,” Montesa said in an order signed on Friday.

The next option for Ressa and Santos would be to file an appeal with the Court of Appeals.

In denying the motion of Ressa and Santos, Montesa for the first time cited a Supreme Court First Division ruling from 2018, which says that cyber libel prescribes not 12 years, but 15 years – an even longer period.

The prescription period is one of the most legally contested issues in the Ressa cyber libel case. Former Supreme Court senior associate justice Antonio Carpio maintains that the prescription period is one year.

The disputed Rappler article was published May 2012, which means complainant Wilfredo Keng had the right to sue only until May 2013 if the one year prescription was followed. Keng filed the complaint only in October 2017.

Montesa found an “unpublished resolution of Tolentino v People,” which is a First Division ruling from the Supreme Court dated August 6, 2018.

Judge’s justification
Montesa quoted the resolution to justify her ruling that cyber libel does not prescribe in one year.

Although Montesa previously upheld the Department of Justice (DOJ) theory that cyber libel prescribes in 12 years, she is now citing the Tolentino resolution which says: “Following Article 90 of the Revised Penal Code, the crime of libel in relation to RA 10175 now prescribes in 15 years.”

“Thus, the Court cannot apply the 1-year prescriptive period provided for under the Revised Penal Code as claimed by the defense,” Montesa said.

Montesa’s earlier ruling on prescription period, and Tolentino vs People, have A different legal basis.

Under the Revised Penal Code (RPC), libel prescribes one year. The Cybercrime Law did not explicitly provide a prescription period for cyber libel.

This lack of a textual basis gave DOJ, and later on Montesa, an opening to cite the pre-war Act 3326 which lays down prescriptive periods for special laws.

The Cybercrime Law imposed penalties one degree higher for offenses under it. So from an original penalty of up to 6 years, cyber libel was now imposed a penalty of up to 12 years. Under the archaic Act 3326, that kind of crime prescribes in 12 years, in the DOJ’s and Montesa’s view.

Prescription of crimes
The Tolentino ruling, however, was based on Article 90 of the RPC which lays out prescription of crimes.

The First Division ruling said: “The new penalty (of cyber libel), therefore, becomes afflictive, following Section 25 6of the RPC… following Article 90 7of the RPC, the crime of libel in relation to RA 10175 now prescribes in fifteen (15) years.”

The 2nd paragraph of Article 90 says: “Crimes punishable by other afflictive penalties shall prescribe in fifteen years.”
Article 90

In his earlier column in the Philippine Daily Inquirer, retired justice Carpio pointed out that Article 90 “is classified into two,” and that the 2nd classification still makes cyber libel’s prescription one year.

“Those based on the length or nature of the penalty, and those based on the crime itself regardless of the length or nature of the penalty. Under the first classification are, among others, crimes punishable by correctional penalty which prescribe in 10 years. Under the second classification are, among others, ‘libel and similar offenses’ which prescribe in one year,” Carpio wrote.

Indeed, the 4th and 5th paragraphs of Article 90 said: “The crime of libel or other similar offenses shall prescribe in one year. The crime of oral defamation and slander by deed shall prescribe in six months.”

Cyber libel ‘not new crime’
In declaring the Cybercrime Law constitutional in 2014, the Supreme Court ruled in Disini vs Secretary of Justice that “cyber libel is actually not a new crime” from the RPC libel.

Thus, Carpio noted, “In such a case, the prescriptive period for cyber libel is governed by the RPC which prescribes its own prescriptive periods. Under Article 90 of the RPC, the crime of libel and other similar offenses shall prescribe in one year.”

“The Tolentino citation was unnecessary because, under Disini, there is a specific prescriptive period and that is Art. 90. We will address that on appeal,” said Ressa and Santos’ lawyer, former Supreme Court spokesperson Ted Te.

Ressa faces 5 other criminal cases related to tax, and 3 criminal complaints, including another cyber libel complaint filed by Keng.

Malaysia police summon Al Jazeera journalists for questioning

Pacific Media Watch — Fri, 10 Jul 2020 08:28:41 +0000

The controversial 101 East episode Locked Up in Malaysia’s Lockdown on 3 July 2020. Video: Al Jazeera

Pacific Media Watch Newsdesk

Malaysian police summoned six Al Jazeera media workers today for questioning relating to an investigation for defamation and violation of Malaysia’s Communications and Multimedia Act (CMA), reports IFJ Asia-Pacific.

The International Federation of Journalists (IFJ) and its Australian affiliate the Media, Entertainment and Arts Alliance (MEAA) have called on authorities to drop the case against Al Jazeera immediately.

The IFJ received reports that six media workers were called to Malaysia Central Police Headquarter in Bukit Aman about 8:50 am (GMT+8) on July 10.

They include senior producer and correspondent Drew Ambrose, producer Jenni Henderson, and the network’s bureau chief, executive producer, cameraman, and digital crew.

According to MEAA, five of the six media workers are Australian. The investigation relates to allegations against Al Jazeera for “sedition, defamation and violation of the country’s Communications and Multimedia Act” after airing Al Jazeera’s 101 East documentary Locked Up in Malaysia’s Lockdown that investigated why the covid-19 pandemic has forced migrant workers into hiding.

In its statement, Al Jazeera “strongly refutes” the charges, which criticised the documentary as being inaccurate, misleading and unfair.

The network “stands by the professionalism, quality and impartiality of its journalism”.

Al Jazeera emphasised the episode does not contain the personal opinions of any its staff, stating the network repeatedly requested and was denied interviews with several senior government ministers and officials.

Malaysia’s CMA is routinely abused targetting journalists despite the Communication and Multimedia minister’s commitment to review the act’s restrictions on press freedom.

Since March 2020, the IFJ has recovered 19 instances of authorities enforcing the CMA to intimidate media workers and freedom of expression advocates.

MEAA wrote to the High Commission of Malaysia in Australia noting: “Malaysia’s obligations under UN General Assembly resolution 74/157 The Safety of journalist and the issue of impunity adopted on December 18 2019 that states Malaysia, as a UN member state, should do its ‘utmost to prevent, violence, threats and attacks targeting journalists and media workers.’ MEAA calls on you to fulfil that obligation towards our colleagues.”

The IFJ said: “The IFJ deeply regrets Malaysian authorities abusing the Communications and Multimedia Act to silence and intimidate journalists. There has been a distinct pattern under the Covid-19 crisis of media workers targeted under Malaysia’s Communications and Multimedia Act and Penal Code for simply doing their job. It is urgent for Malaysia during the Covid-19 pandemic to prioritise the public’s right to know and for the media to be able to report freely and fairly without the threat of persecution.”

Al Jazeera journalists arrive at the Bukit Aman police headquarters in Kuala Lumpur today. Image: Mohid Rasfan/AFP

#HoldTheLine campaign launched to back Maria Ressa, independent media

Pacific Media Watch — Fri, 10 Jul 2020 02:41:56 +0000

Pacific Media Watch Newsdesk

Sixty press freedom groups and civil society organisations, journalism institutions, filmmakers, and other supporters have formed a coalition in support of Maria Ressa and independent media in the Philippines, united around the call to #HoldTheLine.

Today the Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ), the International Center for Journalists (ICFJ), and Reporters Without Borders (RSF) announced the launch of the #HoldTheLine campaign in support of journalist Ressa and independent media under attack in the Philippines.

Acting in coordination with Ressa and her legal team, representatives from the three groups form the steering committee, working alongside dozens of partners on the global campaign and reporting initiatives.

The campaign takes its name from Ressa’s commitment to “hold the line” in response to sustained state harassment and prolific online violence.

An internationally celebrated Filipino-American journalist, Ressa is best known for two decades covering South East Asia for CNN and founding the multi-award winning Philippines news website Rappler.

On 15 June 2020, she was convicted of “cyber-libel,” alongside former Rappler colleague Reynaldo Santos Jr – a criminal charge for which they face up to six years in prison.

The conviction relates to a story about corruption from 2012 – before the law was even enacted – and hung on the correction of a typo.

Pair may be imprisoned
Ressa and Santos both posted bail, but could be imprisoned if the case is not overturned on appeal.

Ressa is facing at least six other cases and charges. Guilty verdicts in all of them could result in her spending nearly a century in jail.

Rappler is also implicated in most of these cases, with several involving criminal charges related to libel, foreign ownership, and taxes.

The convictions are the latest offence in the Duterte government’s wider campaign to stifle independent reporting, including the recent shutdown of the main national broadcaster ABS-CBN.

“I am moved by the incredible outpouring of support we’ve received from around the globe for our campaign to #HoldTheLine against tyranny – even as President Duterte continues his public attacks on me, the legal harassment escalates, and the state-licensed and Facebook-fuelled online violence rages on,” Ressa said.

“We can’t stay silent because silence is consent. We need to be outraged, to fight back with journalism. If we don’t use our rights, we will lose them. Please stand with us!”

What you can do
Those interested in showing support and helping to #HoldTheLine can take two immediate steps in the run-up to Ressa’s next hearing scheduled on July 22:

Join the #HoldTheLine coalition by getting in touch via the contacts below.
Sign and share this petition calling for the Philippine government to drop all charges and cases against Ressa, Santos and Rappler, and end pressure on independent media in the Philippines.

The 60 founding members of the #HoldTheLine Coalition are:

The Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ), the International Center for Journalists (ICFJ) and Reporters Without Borders (RSF), which form the steering committee; African Media Initiative; Association for International Broadcasting (AIB); Alliance for Journalists’ Freedom; Amnesty International; ARTICLE 19; Association of Caribbean Media Workers; Canadian Journalism Forum on Violence and Trauma; Centre for Freedom of the Media (CFOM); Centre for Law and Democracy; CineDiaz; The Coalition For Women In Journalism; Community Media Forum Europe (CMFE); DART Asia Pacific; Dart Center; Doc Society; English PEN; European Journalism Centre; First Look Media; Free Press Unlimited; Global Alliance on Media and Gender (GAMAG); Global Forum for Media Development (GFMD); Global Voices; Graduate School of Journalism, Columbia University; Index on Censorship; Institute for Regional Media and Information (IRMI); International Media Support (IMS); International Association of Women in Radio and Television (IAWRT); International News Safety Institute (INSI); International Press Institute (IPI); International Women’s Media Foundation (IWMF); James W. Foley Legacy Foundation; Judith Neilson Institute; Justice for Journalists Foundation; Media Association for Peace (MAP); Media Development Investment Fund (MDIF); Namibia Media Trust (NMT); National Union of Journalists of the Philippines (NUJP); Open Society Foundations (OSF); Pacific Media Centre (PMC), Pakistan Press Foundation; Panos Institute Southern Africa; PEN America; Philippine Center for Investigative Journalism (PCIJ); Press Freedom Defence Fund; Project Syndicate; Public Media Alliance; Pulitzer Center on Crisis Reporting; Rappler; Rory Peck Trust; Rural Media Network Pakistan; South African National Editors’ Forum (SANEF); Storyhunter; The Signals Network; Tanzania Media Practitioners Association; Union of Journalists in Finland; World Association of Newspapers and News Publishers (WAN-IFRA); and World Editors Forum.

Other Rappler media freedom stories

RSF brands Maria Ressa’s conviction as ‘masquerade’ amid global criticism

Pacific Media Watch — Tue, 16 Jun 2020 13:45:15 +0000

Pacific Media Watch

Reporters Without Borders (RSF) has condemned the up to six years in jail sentence that Philippine journalist Maria Ressa faces on a criminal libel charge in a “shocking judicial masquerade” in Manila yesterday.

It called on the country’s justice system to recover a “semblance of credibility” by overturning her conviction on appeal, RSF said in a statement as global media freedom and human rights watchdogs protested over the verdict.

A Manila regional court convicted Maria Ressa, co-founder and director of the independent news website Rappler, over an article published in 2012 that was the subject of a complaint by a businessman.

But the case was brought under a cyber crime law that took effect after the article’s publication. Rappler‘s former researcher-writer Reynaldo Santos Jr received the same sentence.

Both were allowed to post bail, pending an appeal.

As no criminal legislation can be retroactive, the National Bureau of Investigation dismissed the case in February 2018. But President Rodrigo Duterte’s Department of Justice decided otherwise.

‘Continuous publication’
It revived the case in February 2019 on the grounds that a supposed principle of “continuous publication” could be applied to websites.

“By passing this extremely harsh sentence at the end of utterly Kafkaesque proceedings, the Philippine justice system has demonstrated a complete lack of independence from the executive,” said Daniel Bastard, the head of RSF’s Asia-Pacific desk.

“This sentence bears the malevolent mark of President Duterte and his desire, by targeting Rappler and the figure of Maria Ressa, to eliminate all criticism whatever the cost.

“We urge Manila’s judges to restore a semblance of credibility to the Philippine judicial system by overturning this conviction on appeal.”

@rapplerdotcom‘s @mariaressa could get six years in jail! By passing this harsh sentence after utterly Kafkaesque proceedings, the #Philippines‘ justice system has demonstrated a complete lack of independence from from pdt #Duterte‘s administration. https://t.co/RSK6RARyfM

— RSF (@RSF_inter) June 15, 2020

Systematic harassment
This conviction of Ressa and Rappler is the latest chapter in the systematic judicial harassment to which they have been subjected by various government agencies for more than two years.

Either directly or through Ressa, the website is facing 10 other similar complaints, each as baseless as the other, with the aim of intimidating its journalists.

“What with denying its reporters access to the presidential palace, threatening to withdraw its licence and accusing it of tax evasion, the authorities have stopped at nothing to harass Rappler, even arbitrarily detaining Ressa overnight in February 2019,” said Bastard.

ABS-CBN, the biggest Philippine broadcast network and one of the few other media outlets to dare criticise the government, had its franchise withdrawn last month.

Its radio stations and TV channels all stopped broadcasting on May 5 at the behest of the Justice Department and National Telecommunications Commission.

The country’s authoritarian president had warned the network’s executives last December: “If you expect that [the franchise] will be renewed, I’m sorry. I will see to it that you’re out.”

After falling seven places since 2017, the Philippines is ranked 136th out of 180 countries and territories in RSF’s 2020 World Press Freedom Index.

‘Damaging precedent’
In Brisbane, Professor Peter Greste, director and spokesperson of the Alliance for Journalists’ Freedom and UNESCO chair of journalism and communication at the University of Queensland, said the verdict set “an extraordinarily damaging precedent” for Asia-Pacific and global press freedom.

“To suggest there was no political pressure in this case would be incredibly naïve. The Philippine government has made it abundantly clear that they don’t think Maria should be free. The judge will have been acutely aware of this pressure.

“As a former political prisoner myself, I am deeply concerned about Maria and her former colleague, researcher-writer Reynaldo Santos Jr. who was also convicted in this case. More broadly though, I am concerned about what this means for the people of the Philippines.

“They might not all read Maria’s website, Rappler.com, but they all benefit from a free press that is able to question and challenge those in power. This judgment strikes a blow for every independent journalist in the country, chilling the kind of enquiry that makes democracy work.

“But this is not just about the Philippines. The human rights group, Freedom House, has charted a decline in democracy across the Asian region, and this conviction accelerates that trend.

“The AJF urges democratic governments – including Australia’s – to respond swiftly and decisively. This is a test case for the world’s resolve in standing up to authoritarianism by supporting press freedom.”

Maria Ressa found guilty in blow to Philippines’ press freedom #cyberlibel #mediafreedom @pacmedcentre @cnnphilippines @rapplerdotcom @mongster @dannyarao https://t.co/P6h8lNvEYr pic.twitter.com/FL75VyrdOy

— David Robie (@DavidRobie) June 15, 2020

‘Another nail in coffin’
In Auckland, Professor David Robie, director of the Pacific Media Centre, said the conviction of Rappler’s Maria Ressa and Raynaldo Santos Jr “drives another nail into the coffin of a free press and democracy” in the Philippines.

“It is also a chilling cautionary tale for the Asia-Pacific region and especially for those Pacific countries, such as Papua New Guinea and Fiji, that have imposed draconian cyber crime and social media laws that are really designed to stifle free expression and a free media.

“Fiji is currently deploying its social media law in a blatant attempt to muzzle its democratic opposition and intimidate the media. The behaviour of the state and security forces frequently display the typical characteristics of a virtual dictatorship.”

The Pacific Media Centre’s Pacific Media Watch freedom project collaborates with the Paris-based Reporters Without Borders.

Don’t be fooled by Fiji PM’s apology over arrests – media freedom is dire

Pacific Media Watch — Thu, 11 Apr 2019 20:30:33 +0000

Pacific Media Watch Newsdesk

Media commentator Gavin Ellis has condemned the state of media freedom in Fiji in the wake of the arrests and detention of three Newsroom journalists from New Zealand.

He talked to Kathryn Ryan in his weekly RNZ media commentary about the apology of Fiji Prime Minister Voreqe Bainimarama over the police wrongfully-detaining the journalists, claiming it rang hollow when it came from the man responsible for the dire state of media freedom in Fiji.

Ellis said New Zealand should take a “jaundiced view” of media freedom in that country and cited many instances of abuses of a free press since Bainimarama came to power in a military coup in 2006.

LISTEN TO RNZ PODCAST: Fijian apology versus media freedom

Although Bainimarama now headed an elected government, his administration had “consolidated” control over journalists by turning the military imposed media decree into the Media Industry Development Act.

Ellis cited Fiji’s Online Safety Act, which had been designed to deal with cyberbullying, but journalists feared could be a “trojan horse” against the media.

Commentator Ellis also praised the Pacific Media Centre for its research and publication on Fiji media issues, noting Sri Krishnamurthi’s reporting of last year’s general election and the media, and Fiji journalist Ricardo Morris’ Pacific Journalism Monograph report on Watching Our Words about self-censorship in Fiji.

Also, featured on the Ellis programme, is an Australian academic, Dr Denis Muller writing in The Conversation, who attacked his country’s media for violations of media ethics in their coverage of the Christchurch mosque shootings.

Gavin Ellis is former editor of the New Zealand Herald. He can be contacted on gavin.ellis@xtra.co.nz

Timorese journalists protest outside Philippine embassy over Ressa arrest

Pacific Media Watch — Sat, 16 Feb 2019 07:46:59 +0000

Pacific Media Watch Newsdesk

The Timor-Leste Press Union has protested in front of the Philippine Embassy in the capital Dili in solidarity with indicted Journalist Maria Ressa over her “persecution” and in defence of freedom of the press.

Rappler CEO and editor Maria Ressa is known and respected for her work as a journalist in bringing the plight of the suffering people of Timor-Leste under a quarter century of Indonesian occupation prior to renewed independence in 1999.

The Timorese journalist protest was broadcast by the public broadcaster RTTL.

The Philippine Daily Inquirer, one of the leading Philippine national dailies, reported today that Ressa had accused President Rodrigo Duterte’s administration of acting like a dictatorship and using the law as a weapon to muzzle dissent.

“What we’re seeing … is a level of impunity that I frankly haven’t seen, and I’ve been a journalist for more than 30 some odd years,” Ressa said after posting bail in a Manila court on Thursday.

Ressa, who was selected by Time magazine as one of its Persons of the Year last year, is the head of Rappler Inc., which has aggressively covered Duterte’s administration.

Rappler publisher Maria Ressa speaking at a media conference after her release on bail in Manila. Image: Philippine Daily Inquirer

She was arrested Wednesday over a libel complaint from a businessman. Duterte’s government claimed the arrest was a normal step in response to the complaint and had nothing to do with press freedom.

Universities condemn arrest
University leaders and student groups in the Philippines have also condemned the arrest of Ressa, saying schools must defend the truth and press freedom, reports Rappler.

Ateneo de Manila University (ADMU) president Father Ramon Jose Villarin and De La Salle Philippines president Brother Armin Luistro urged the universities’ communities to speak out and defend democracy.

“The university shares Maria’s challenge to shine the light on power and be brave in witnessing to the truth. Veritas liberabit vos (The truth will set you free),” Villarin said.

“Lies and false promises of unbridled power, when met with silence, will only make us a nation of slaves,” he added.

Luistro urged Lasallians to “vote with their feet” in the upcoming 2019 elections and make their voices heard to defend press freedom.

Ressa was arrested in connection with a cyber libel case filed by the Justice Department.

The University of the Philippines (UP) Diliman Student Council and ADMU publication The Guidon denounced the arrest, saying students would continue to hold the line with Ressa and Rappler.

‘Make our voices heard’
Here are the statements of support from various schools:

Brother Armin Luistro FSC, president of De La Salle Philippines:

“Let’s give our all out support as Lasallians to Rappler. Let’s defend press freedom. Let’s make our voices heard. Let’s vote with our feet and stand with Maria Ressa!”

Father Jose Ramon Villarin SJ, president of Ateneo de Manila University (ADMU):

“In my statement of 13 October 2017, I had occasion to ‘call on everyone in the community to defend our democratic institutions” and to state that “[t]his call to defend our democratic institutions is not even a matter of political partisanship or persuasion. It is a call that is borne out of our conviction about what is right and just and truly democratic.’

“While such pronouncements then pertained to government institutions in particular, the same should be said with regard to freedom of speech, of expression and of the press. No less than the Philippine Constitution recognises ‘the vital role of communication and information in nation-building’ (Constitution, Art. II. Sec. 24) and ‘the freedom of speech, of expression, or of the press’ (Constitution, Art. III, Sec. 4).

“There are several rights and freedoms necessary for a democratic society to function. The right to life, the right to due process, the sweet freedoms of speech and of the press – all of these were once considered sacred, inviolable. But as of late these have been called into question; mocked, attacked, degraded.

“Rappler, and its brave leader Maria Ressa, have consistently held the line against the erosion of these liberties. It is journalists like her who keep us all informed about the state of our nation, covering different areas of our national life, contributing immeasurably to the wealth and value of our country.

“Too often these days, it is they who wage daily battles against fake news, expose corruption and bring to light illegal practices and wrongdoing by those who lead us.”

Philippine website editor Maria Ressa held on ‘cyber libel’ charge

Pacific Media Watch — Wed, 13 Feb 2019 20:38:41 +0000

Pacific Media Watch Newsdesk

The Paris-based global media advocacy group Reporters Without Borders (RSF) has condemned yesterday’s arrest of Maria Ressa, editor of the independent Manila-based news website Rappler, on a “cyber libel” (defamation) charge.

It is referring the Philippine government’s “repeated persecution” of this journalist and her website to the United Nations Secretary-General.

Chosen as one of Time Magazine’s “persons of the year” in 2018, Ressa was spending last night in detention after being arrested at Rappler headquarters by agents from the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) armed with an arrest warrant issued on the basis of online defamation case filed last week.

“It seems that her arrest was left until the end of the afternoon with the deliberate aim of keeping her in detention overnight,” RSF said.

According to her colleagues, the judge said there was no time to handle the bail request until today.

The Philippine Justice Department filed the case against Ressa and Rappler on February 6 over an article published in 2012 about alleged ties between a Philippine businessmen and the then president of the country’s Supreme Court.

The charges, which carry a possible 12-year jail sentence, were brought under a cyber crime law that had not yet taken effect when the article was published.

‘No place in prison’
“Maria Ressa has no place in prison and the judicial persecution to which she is being subjected is becoming increasingly unacceptable,” RSF secretary-general Christophe Deloire said.

“Digging up an old case that was dismissed in February 2018 is absolutely absurd and confirms that this is not justice but an attempt to gag a media outlet and editor recognised internationally for their professionalism and independence.”

Deloire added: “We are asking the UN secretary-general to intercede as quickly as possible to end this harassment. At the same time, we ask the court that handles this case to dismiss all the charges against Maria Ressa and Rappler.”

This is the sixth charge to be brought against Ressa in more than a year of systematic judicial harassment.

Four charges of tax evasion and failing to file income tax returns were brought against Rappler and Ressa last November. A fifth charge, described by RSF as “completely spurious”, was brought in December.

Ressa is one of the 25 members of an international panel created at RSF’s initiative last year that drafted an international Declaration on Information and Democracy.

On the basis of the declaration, the leaders of 12 democratic countries launched a political process on November 11 aimed at providing democratic guarantees for news and information and freedom of opinion.

Media freedom awards
As well as being one of Time Magazine’s “persons of the year,” Ressa also received the 2018 Press Freedom Award from the Committee to Protect Journalists and has become a symbol of the Philippine media’s fight against intimidation by President Rodrigo Duterte.

The Philippines is ranked 133rd out of 180 countries in RSF’s 2018 World Press Freedom Index.

Press freedom groups around the world, including New Zealand’s Pacific Media Centre/Pacific Media Watch, condemned the persecution, with Pen America saying the arrest showed the Duterte government was “desperate” to silence critics.

“Maria Ressa, along with her colleagues at Rappler, has fearlessly exposed the abuses of the Duterte government, even in the face of relentless harassment,” Pen said.

“By arresting her on these absurd and baseless charges, concerning an article published 7 years ago and prior to the enactment of the very law under which she is being charged, the Philippines government has exposed how desperate it is to silence critics and stamp out independent journalism in the country.

“We call on the Duterte government to immediately drop these charges and release Ressa. Investigative journalism is not a crime.”

#Journalismisnotacrime

More Rappler stories

Critics see Fiji’s Online Safety Act as ‘Trojan horse’ for online censors

Pacific Media Watch — Wed, 23 Jan 2019 00:25:47 +0000

By Mong Palatino of Global Voices

Fiji’s Online Safety Act took effect this month amid concerns that it will be used to censor the internet.

The law was passed in May 2018 two months after the Attorney-General’s office submitted it for Parliament deliberation. The government deemed it necessary to make the internet a safe space for women and children:

The Fijian Government in its commitment to ensure access to connectivity for all Fijians, has embarked on promoting a safe online culture and environment in hindsight of the recent increase of reports on harmful online behaviour such as cyberbullying, cyber stalking, Internet trolling and exposure to offensive or harmful content, particularly in respect of children.

Fiji has an estimated 500,000 active online users.

The Fiji media was placed under state control after the military staged a coup in 2006. In 2010, the Media Industry Development Decree was passed which noted press freedom but fears of state reprisal led to self-censorship in the media sector.

Meanwhile, the growing use of social media in recent years has allowed citizens to use this platform to share their views, report alternative news, and engage public officials.

Some reports mention that if the Media Industry Development Decree dealt with mainstream press, the Online Safety Act is designed to regulate social media.

Fourteen members of the opposition voted against the Online Safety Bill which they claimed would undermine democracy.

But some supporters of the law disputed this:

Fiji Sun Online, a major news portal, published an editorial endorsing the measure:

The Online Safety Bill if passed will protect Fijians from being victimised on social media as is rampant today. It will make online users think twice before they post things online.

Critics cited part four of the law as problematic since it could be arbitrarily used to intimidate internet users. This particular provision considers “the posting of an electronic communication with the intention to cause harm to an individual” as an offence and is punishable by five to seven years in prison.

Aside from the prison sentence, those found guilty of violating the law will be fined up to F$20,000 (US$9,440) for individual offenders.

Opponents of the law warned that “causing harm” as an offence was too broad so that any dissenting opinion could be interpreted as illegal content.

Jope Tarai from the University of the South Pacific noted in Pacific Journalism Review that the proposed Online Safety Commission as stipulated under section six of the law appears to mimic and repeat the functions of the police-based Cyber Crime Unit. Aside from creating a new agency that will police internet content, the law gives broad powers to the Online Safety Commission which “has raised concerns on its possible threat to free speech.”

The PJR scholar also warned that despite the avowed intent to promote safety, the law could lead to the censorship of free speech:

The Act on the surface professes online ‘Safety’, while its vagueness on responsible free speech leaves the act open to being a Trojan horse for online ‘Regulation’ and censorship of dissenting voices.

The claimed intent behind the Online Safety Act is certainly a noble one and long overdue in so far as protecting women, children and victims of irresponsible online behavior is concerned. However, the ‘danger’ narrative creatively cultivated by Fijian state officials ignored the strengths of social media.

During the Parliament deliberations, a group of young people enumerated their concerns about the proposed legislation:

We are a group of individual youth concerned about the effect of this Bill on free speech in Fiji. While we appreciate the need to protect children and men and women against revenge porn or unauthoriSed sharing of their intimate images or videos, we are concerned that this Bill is too widely drafted, that it can be misused by those in authority to punish and prosecute those who share their views, who do not share the same political views i.e. it can be misused to prosecute political opponents, rather than serve its purpose to protect children against cyberbullying or other online abuse.

Finally, Pacific Freedom Forum (PFF), a media network, warned that the new online safety law will “muzzle” rather than protect Fiji’s citizens. PFF Polynesia co-Chair Monica Miller said:

More than half a million citizens are now affected by this law and they need to be reassured that their rights to share ideas and information won’t be compromised even furTHER.

Mong Palatino is regional editor for Southeast Asia of Global Voices. He is an activist and two-term member of the Philippine House of Representatives, and has been blogging since 2004 at mongster’s nest. This article is republished with permission.

More Fiji stories

Nauru faces media, security pressure ahead of Pacific Islands Forum

APR editor — Mon, 03 Sep 2018 05:16:10 +0000

Nauru President Baron Waqa addressing the media before opening the Pacific Islands Forum. Video: PI Forum Secretariat

By Gia Garrick, Political Reporter of RNZ National

Regional security and other pressing issues like climate change will top the formal agenda at the Pacific Islands Forum in Nauru this week.

But leaders will also be confronted with the situation facing refugees in Australian-run camps on the tiny island, living just kilometres from forum events.

The Nauru government has already started a pre-emptive PR campaign, with its president blaming Australian advocates for the plight of refugee children.

New Zealand says it is an issue that will be raised at the forum. However, Australia’s new Prime Minister Scott Morrison will not be there to hear it. He has decided not to attend, and has sent newly appointed Foreign Minister Marise Payne in his place.

Winston Peters plans to meet with Payne while in Nauru, and it will be the first time the pair have sat down together in their respective foreign minister roles.

The Pacific Island Forum comes just months after Peters launched the new government’s so-called “Pacific reset”.

He and Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern visited Samoa, Niue, Tonga and the Cook Islands in March, announcing a raft of increases to aid and development funding.

Broader region
But this forum is an opportunity for the pair to meet with leaders from around the broader region.

“Well I’ll have a chance to meet a lot of them on the way over, and some of them I’ve been talking to very recently. So that’ll be more than half of them. And I’ll get the bilateral with Marise Payne,” Peters said.

Ardern had initially indicated she would like to meet with some of the refugees, but said it was something she had since thought long and hard about.

“I’ve given a lot of thought to this,” she said. “I do have a short amount of time there, but I do want a perspective from those who are residents on Nauru.”

She plans to reiterate New Zealand’s offer to take 150 refugees from across Nauru and Manus Islands.

“But if I meet with individual refugees, how do we decide who they would be? Does that raise an expectation that I then can’t fulfill for them as an individual?

“So those are some of the things weighing on my mind.”

One day visit
Ardern will be there for one day only, flying to Nauru early Wednesday morning for the leaders’ retreat, which is considered the most important day of the forum.

Leaders are expected to sign a new regional security declaration at the conclusion of these talks, which Peters said would cover off a number of emerging challenges facing the Pacific.

“There’s human security, there’s environmental and resource security, transnational crime and cyber-security challenges – all of which are part of this declaration.”

National’s foreign affairs spokesperson Todd McClay said he hoped the cohesive nature of the Pacific Island countries was addressed first and foremost by Peters.

“It’s very important that he talks to Fiji and gets them to withdraw their claim from a year or two ago that Australia and New Zealand should leave or be thrown out of the Pacific Island Forum, with the view that we are not really Pacific countries.

“We are, we’re good neighbours, and for us all to move forward there needs to be a clear dialogue around that.”

When it comes to any plans to meet with refugees or raising issues of human rights, McClay said New Zealand could stand firm on its independent foreign policy.

But he warned against any moves that may destabilise its relationship with Australia.

Australian ‘protection’
“Fundamentally when it comes to refugees, the Australian border does provide some protection to New Zealand. So that refugees on boats don’t make the arduous journey down to New Zealand which is very, very risky.

“So ultimately he must be very diplomatic in this.”

But the pressure is already on Nauru, even before the leaders arrive.

Refugee advocates have been increasingly vocal in their criticisms of the conditions the refugees continue to live in and about the way they are treated.

They also say the government there is cynically trying to pretty up the place, with mouldy tents which have housed refugees for years being pulled down just last week.

Media coverage has also been a contentious topic ahead of the forum, with limits put on the number of journalists attending and guidelines around reporting in place.

This article is republished under the Pacific Media Centre’s content partnership with Radio New Zealand.

PNG plans to shut down Facebook for one month to target ‘fake users’

Pacific Media Watch — Tue, 29 May 2018 08:59:30 +0000

Pacific Media Watch Newsdesk

Papua New Guinea plans to shut down Facebook for one month to enable the government to filter out “fake users”, report local media

The PNG Post-Courier reported today that the “shutdown” was a reality, but gave no date for this planned action.

Post-Courier reporter Benny Geteng said Facebook users in the country could expect the shutdown so that the Communications and Information Technology Department could carry out “research and analysis” of its use.

Communications Minister Sam Basil said that the shutdown would enable the department and National Research Institute to conduct further research on how the social network was being used by users, the newspaper said.

“The time will allow information to be collected to identify users that hide behind fake accounts, users that upload pornographic images, users that post false and misleading information on Facebook to be filtered and removed.

“This will allow genuine people with real identities to use the social network responsibly,” Basil was quoted by the Post-Courier as saying.

The minister said that the department could better analyse the positive impact it would have on the population during the month-long shutdown and weigh the impact of progress without or with its use.

Enforcing Cyber Crime Act
Basil said that his ministry was trying to enforce the Cyber Crime Act which was legislated in 2016, the Post-Courier said.

“The Act has already been passed, so what I’m trying to do is to ensure the law is enforced accordingly where perpetrators can be identified and charged accordingly. We cannot allow the abuse of Facebook to continue in the country.

“I will now work closely with the police for them to be properly trained and informed to fully enforce the Cyber Crime Act.”

Basil said the positives of the social network were there for the people to embrace.

“We can also look at the possibility of creating a new social network site for PNG citizens to use with genuine profiles as well.

“If there need be then we can gather our local applications developers to create a site that is more conducive for Papua New Guineans to communicate within the country and abroad as well,” he said.

Basil said that a time had not been set as yet to implement the options but he would advise depending on assessment of the usage of the site over time, the Post-Courier reported.

Chinese model hint
Papua New Guinean affairs commentator Keith Jackson, who publishes the blog PNG Attitude, said Communications Minister Sam Basil had established no date for the shutdown, nor had he revealed how he would achieve it.

Basil had also not stated how the country would cope if access was prevented to the many substantive and legitimate sites that were used for day-to-day commercial, government, personal and emergency transactions in PNG.

Jackson also said the minister had hinted at using a Chinese model of a “new social network site” for PNG.

More PNG stories

Peter S. Kinjap: Only a ‘scrub up’, fresh MPs can save PNG’s future

KINJAP Peter S. — Mon, 06 Feb 2017 02:15:46 +0000

OPINION: By Peter S. Kinjap in Port Moresby.

The current Papua New Guinea government is being accused of being the most corrupt in the short history of Papua New Guinea. It has tampered with the national constitution, bent it, or even created new laws to escape being held responsible and avoided passing tougher legislation to fight corruption.

It’s so sad — a sad scenario for Papua New Guinea indeed.

Before going into the 2012 general election, Prime Minister Peter O’Neill promised the nation that he would curb corruption. He set up the Investigation Task Force Sweep (ITFS) which has done an excellent job exposing and prosecuting corruption.

But why did O’Neill disband it? Why did Police Commissioner Garry Baki put a “vetting” on the high-profile investigations cases that include accusations against O’Neill?

At the 2012 Alotau Accord, the governing coalition partners pledged to table in the Parliament the Anti-money Laundering Legislation, Whistleblowers Legislation, Freedom of Information Legislation and Independent Commission against Corruption Act (ICAC).

But during the People’s National Congress (PNC) reign from 2012 to 2017 with its coalition partners, none of these laws have got passed in the Parliament as promised during the election pledges to fight corruption.

Instead, O’Neill sees fit to legislate a Cyber-Crime Law and even proposing amendments to change election dates and nomination fees.

‘Sitting’ on whistleblowers law
Several times the Opposition have blasted the government for “sitting” on the Whistleblowers Protection Act and not tabling it in Parliament.

Even National Court Justice Martin Ipang spoke of the need for the Whistleblowers Act in the courtroom when ruling on Western Governor Ati Wobiro’s case.

Citizens needed to be protected if they have heard about corruption, or if they seen it, or if they become victim of corruption and want to report this.

Papua New Guinea needs the Whistleblowers Act. This is a very important law for PNG together with the ICAC. But the PNC-led government has failed and fooled the nation.

A new government that will be formed after the 2017 elections must see to ensure these laws are enacted.

People would be asking why time and again “most corrupt” politicians are not exposed and brought to justice.

Here is an answer from one politician with his observation. Samuel Basil, a two-term Bulolo MP says: “PNC’s best bet (if they lose government) is to have another veteran MP’s political party to take reign.

“Why? Because it’s like having partners in crime taking control over once again, or simply put it, it is corruption changing hands.

“If they bring their brothers down they will all go down together, it’s like they all have been closely knitted together.”

Only fresh new MPs without any connections with the current and past regimes can clean this country up — there is no other way.

There has to be a “scrubbing” period. Citizens from all walks of life need to face the judiciary to “clear” anything against them.

Your vote in 2017 means, “save PNG, or destroy it”. Over to you.

Environmental advocate sues Duterte supporters for cyberbullying

APR editor — Sat, 07 May 2016 04:03:24 +0000

“Guns, goons and the presidency”, a current affairs video about Rodrigo Duterte, the leading candidate in the Philippines elections on Monday. Video: Al Jazeera’s 101 East

By Rosette Adel in Manila

An environmentalist who received “death and rape” threats from supporters of presidential candidate Davao City mayor Rodrigo “Rody” Duterte has filed an election offence case at the Commission on Elections (Comelec).

Human rights defender and climate advocate Renee Juliene Karunungan was prompted to file a case this week against 20 supporters of Duterte, after she was cyberbullied when she aired her opinion against his candidacy online.

She stressed that cyberbullying is a violation of basic rights and a threat to democracy.

Human rights defender and climate advocate Renee Julienne Karunungan … filed an election lawsuit over “death, rape” threats against supporters of presidential candidate Davao City Mayor Rodrigo “Rody” Duterte. Image: Shiela Crisostomo/The Star

Karunungan said she was subjected to death and rape threats after posting a meme saying “Duterte is a lazy choice” on March 22.

But she only discovered the threats of rape, physical violence, and harassment upon checking her inbox on April 7, when she found 200 “filtered” Facebook messages.

After learning of the threats, Karunungan posted screenshots of the hate messages on April 7, which later on became viral.

‘No laughing matter’
She said she hopes people will be able “to reflect on their behavior be responsible and respect the rights and dignities of fellow citizens that’s why she filed the case.”

“Online threats of murder, rape, serious physical injuries are no laughing matter. These constitute crimes under the Revised Penal Code, Cybercrime Law and the Omnibus Election Code. These kinds of criminal behavior need to stop. For this reason, I have decided to file criminal cases against those who have sent me threats,” Karunungan said.

“My rights offline are the same as my rights online. There is a difference between freedom of speech and speech that incites violence. It is time that people know the difference.

“We should not condone violence, especially on the basis of political views. This kind of behavior is unacceptable and is a threat to our democracy and violates our basic rights,” she added.

Karunungan’s lawyer, Rowena “JJ” Disni, said the Constitution protects the freedom of all citizens to engage in debates and discussions involving political views. However, he said freedom of speech does not allow committing crimes against each other.

Disni clarified that the case was not against any candidate but against the supporters to remind them of respecting the rights of people to free speech.

‘Sober discussions’
“We should as a society encourage sober online and off-line discussions about important issues such as the choice of who will lead the country.

“We do not wish to punish any candidate’s supporters but to remind or citizens as they play their role in the political arena, they should not cross the line to committing crimes,” Disni said in a media statement.

Duterte’s camp, through spokesperson Peter Lavina, earlier asked the mayor’s supporters to “take the moral high ground and take caution in social media” and “to stop bashing and threatening journalist as well as all who express views different” from theirs.

Aside from the Comelec, Karunungan also filed criminal charges before the Department of Justice.

Her move to file election offence and criminal raps against supporters of Duterte was supported by human rights groups Task Force Detainees of the Philippines, Medical Action Group, and Dakila.

Rosette Adel is a Philippine Star journalist. This article is republished from the Philippine Star.

ANZ customers in Vanuatu lose heavily in illegal money transfers

APR editor — Fri, 19 Feb 2016 03:39:28 +0000

By Dan McGarry in Port Vila

Angry ANZ customers have told the Vanuatu Daily Post that they have lost a total of more than 2 million vatu (NZ$27,000) in recent weeks in what appears to be a concerted series of unauthorised money transfers between ANZ Vanuatu accounts.

Total losses could be much higher, as it appears that numerous accounts have been affected.

The victims were shocked and angered when told by ANZ that the money would not automatically be refunded.

It has been confirmed to the Daily Post that others have opened criminal complaints with the police.

The Daily Post has also heard from bank officials and affected customers themselves that there appears to have been a widespread and systematic series of unauthorised transfers of funds between local ANZ accounts affecting numerous customers in Vanuatu.

The money seems to have been funnelled into other local accounts. Customers were told that two or more people had been identified by ANZ staff as recipients of these funds.

One victim reported that transfers from their account went to a woman. Two more victims identified the same person as the recipient. This person reportedly holds an account at the ANZ Santo branch.

Unwitting dupes?
These recipients might well be unwitting dupes—people whose accounts have also been compromised and used to accumulate funds before the money is sent to its final destination.

The Daily Post was unable to contact one recipient whose name was provided by the victims.

Based on reports received, most of the transfers seem to have consisted of a series of 80,000 vatu (about NZ$1070) transactions. Victims told the Daily Post that this amount sits right at the daily transfer limit imposed on most personal accounts.

One customer reported a series of transfers denominated in US currency, all on the same day, each one for thousands of dollars.

Two others reported that they continued to be victimised after they had reported the problem to ANZ. These alleged acts of online fraud seem to be the latest evidence of a recent increase in criminal financial activity in Fiji, Vanuatu and neighbouring countries.

ANZ is currently conducting an awareness-raising campaign, publishing public service announcements in this newspaper and other media, trying to shed light on some of the most common scams and tactics.

Recently, several ANZ customers in Vanuatu were the victims of a so-called “card-skimming” operation, in which a disguised electronic device was placed on one or more ANZ ATMs and used to steal bank card information.

Skimming victims
Every skimming victim contacted by the Daily Post reported that the stolen funds were returned by ANZ within days. But this latest series of events seem to be distinct from the skimming problem in three ways:

First, every victim the Daily Post spoke with reported that the unauthorised transfers were conducted via internet banking.

Second, the amounts lost in every case ran into the hundreds of thousands of vatu, and in one case, just over a million vatu at current currency conversion rates.

Third, while ANZ returned all funds lost to skimmers without demur, it reportedly told this group that it would not act without a police complaint, and even then, would not guarantee the return of the lost funds.

“They’re not taking responsibility at all,” said one customer. “What I’ve said to them is, ‘I have entrusted my savings at your bank, and your systems, and you’ve let me down.’”

“It is their system,” he added, “it is their system that they have insisted that we follow.”

The Vanuatu Financial Intelligence Unit, or FIU, is responsible for intelligence gathering and liaison between law enforcement and the financial community. In a press statement yesterday, they confirmed an “exponential increase of alleged fraudulent activity involving Internet Banking….”

Facebook scams
FIU Director Floyd Mera cited so-called Facebook scams and phishing emails as the primary source of this activity.

While there have been dozens, if not hundreds, of victims of Facebook fraud in recent months, in which people’s accounts are taken over and used by scammers and spammers, none of the victims the Daily Post spoke to fell into this category.

Each of the victims accessed ANZ’s online banking service only from personal desktop computers from home or from the office.

All were perfectly aware of a recent spate of fraudulent emails purporting to come from ANZ. One stated that their partner was a computer security expert, and that they had learned to avoid such things.

Another, an elderly man, said simply, “I’m too old for Facebook and Twitter.” He explained that he used the online banking system to check his balance and for no other purpose.

ANZ staff were contacted late last week and on several occasions prior to publication of this story.

Despite the fact that the Daily Post had received explicit authorisation from the victims to review the cases in detail, an ANZ spokesperson declined to discuss any of the particulars.

Complaints ‘taken seriously’
In response to a series of questions and requests from the Daily Post, they said, “While we are unable to comment on individual customers’ circumstances, these complaints are taken very seriously and are being investigated.

“Fraud is becoming increasingly sophisticated, but there are steps customers can take to protect themselves from becoming a victim.”

The steps include not sharing usernames or passwords with anyone, changing passwords on a regular basis, closely monitoring account activity, as well as following responsible security practices while online.

Asked to comment on the response, one of the victims said that it “Says a lot without saying very much.”

Another added that the ANZ response was “not useful to me at this point in time. The thief has got my money already.”

Any other victims of online fraud or illegal internet banking activity are encouraged to contact the Daily Post with their stories.

Phil Robertson: Eroding human rights in Australian foreign policy

APR editor — Wed, 17 Feb 2016 20:56:55 +0000

By Phil Robertson

The scene happens every day in capitals across south-east Asia: a strategy session in an ambassador’s ornate sitting room over coffee with like-minded senior diplomats from the US, Canada, and EU member states trying to figure out how to persuade a national government to reverse course on human rights.

On this particular day in Bangkok the ask was a tough one, demanding the government stop arresting and roughing up critics, chastising and censoring the media, and cracking down on public protests.

Human Rights Watch got a rare invite, and during the inevitable brainstorming, I asked “Where is Australia, why aren’t they here?”

Eyes lowered and heads shook ever so slightly around the room. Talking like a friend has fallen off the wagon, one diplomat said “We’re not sure of them anymore. They’re going a different way.”

Left unsaid in this polite circle is that the human rights principles once a core part of Australia’s foreign policy have been undermined by its single-minded determination to stop boats of asylum seekers and migrants “by hook or by crook.”

Last year was a hard one for human rights in many parts of Asia, with governments arresting and jailing critics in opposition parties and civil society, trying to put the internet genie back in the bottle through censorship and cyber-crime laws, and cracking down on NGOs and community groups with new draconian regulations.

Repression in Thailand is in full swing under the military government. Prime Minister Najib of Malaysia has arrested dozens of people for publicly criticising his government. Cambodia, Laos and Vietnam routinely arrest and jail dissidents using ruling-party controlled courts.

Myanmar has a new government but no solution to end the repression of ethnic Rohingyas. Religious minorities in Afghanistan, Pakistan and Indonesia face blasphemy charges, death threats, and massacres.

Rights-respecting solutions rare
Australia is rarely pushing for rights-respecting solutions these days – and more than that, is too often part of the problem. Politicians trapped in the refugee policy dialogue in Canberra frequently fail to recognise that Australia’s boat push-back policies, and offshoring asylum seekers into abusive conditions of detention in Nauru and on Manus Island, are seen as a green-light by Asian governments to do the same: send asylum seekers and refugees back into harm’s way or lock them up in indefinite detention.

For example, during the south-east Asia boat people crisis in May 2015, the Thai, Malaysian and Indonesian navies played a cruel game of “human ping-pong” by pushing away boats of starving and sick Rohingya.

At a time when the governments were prepared to let these people float around waiting to die, then prime minister Tony Abbott did the unconscionable by justifying those tactics, saying “if other countries choose to do that, frankly that is almost certainly absolutely necessary if the scourge of people smuggling is to be beaten.”

It suddenly became much harder for non-governmental organisations, governments, and UN agencies to persuade those three countries to bring the Rohingya to shore.

By soliciting governments to help stop boats, Australia also ends up looking the other way on other rights abuses. By cooperating with Australia to take back boats of their nationals, both Sri Lanka and Vietnam know they could count on Australia not to publicly raise concerns about the rights abuses that drove those people into the boats in the first place.

Push backs by other countries are also met with silent acquiescence from Canberra. Australia said nothing when Thailand sent back 109 ethnic Uighurs in July to China to face torture in custody and long prison terms, and has kept silent as Beijing pursues its dissidents in Bangkok.

China arrests and sends fleeing North Koreans back to the brutal regime of dictator Kim Jong-Un, and is met by deafening silence from down under.

Praised Cambodia
Australia has praised Cambodia for signing the September 2014 Cambodia-Australia deal to resettle refugees from Nauru to Phnom Penh. Prime minister Hun Sen told Australia that Cambodia was safe for refugees to resettle – but don’t tell that to ethnic Montagnards fleeing political and religious persecution in Vietnam who Cambodia hunted down in the border forests of Ratanakiri province and forced back into Hanoi’s hands, all after the Australia deal was signed.

Meanwhile, Cambodia is laughing all the way to the bank with at least $55 million of Australia’s taxpayer dollars for taking just five refugees so far from Nauru. All this for a deal that the UN high commissioner for refugees termed “a worrying departure from international norms” of refugee protection.

With the recent high court ruling, Australia now faces the return of 267 asylum seekers to Nauru and Manus Island, where they face possible renewed physical and sexual assault, and life in limbo.

Australia’s international reputation has suffered enough – it’s time to do the right thing by accepting its responsibilities, not only as a party to the UN Refugee Convention but also as a responsible neighbour and member of the international community, and provide this group with fair and timely refugee status determination in Australia.

And for those found to be refugees, let them stay.

Phil Robertson is the deputy Asia director of Human Rights Watch. This article was first published in The Guardian.