Court Rules Against COVID-19 Activist Couple

In a surprising turn of events, Singaporean activist Iris Koh and her husband Raymond Ng Kai Hoe have been sentenced to pay S$12,000 (approximately US$9,338) in legal costs to the Health Sciences Authority (HSA). The couple's recent attempt to initiate a judicial review against the HSA was deemed an abuse of process by the court.

The ruling came after a hearing held on September 19, during which it was revealed that the couple's application failed to establish any reasonable cause of action. According to a spokesperson for the Attorney-General's Chambers (AGC), the judicial review was struck out entirely, emphasizing that the HSA had already conducted an investigation into the very matters the couple sought to challenge.

Iris Koh, formerly known as Shu Cii and the founder of the anti-vaccination group Healing the Divide, had aimed to compel the HSA to investigate the use of celebrities in promoting COVID-19 vaccinations. However, AGC representatives successfully argued that the couple's requests were not only redundant but reflected "an academic or hypothetical interpretation of the law."

The judge highlighted that the application from Koh and Ng was lacking in substantial legal merit and ruled that it would serve the interests of justice to dismiss the case outright. Consequently, they were burdened with the costs associated with the striking out application and two other prior applications made by the duo.

In a Facebook post following the court's decision, Koh sought financial support from her followers to cover the imposed costs. She noted that the case was invalidated due to "issues of standing" and the couple's inability to adequately address concerns about "special damages."

Despite the adverse ruling, Koh expressed her commitment to learning from the experience. She shared that the journey has revealed insights into the complexities of pursuing judicial reviews and is preparing her for future legal challenges regarding public rights. Notably, she acknowledged that the threshold for initiating such reviews is significantly higher than for merely having a case struck out.

Aside from this recent legal setback, Koh is also facing 15 criminal charges, related to various allegations, and is scheduled to appear in court again in October for a criminal case disclosure conference.

This incident not only highlights the ongoing tensions surrounding vaccine promotion in Singapore but also sheds light on the wider societal debates about public health policies and individual rights in the face of a global pandemic. The activism surrounding this issue continues to spark divided opinions, raising critical questions about the role of authorities, the responsibilities of public figures, and the voices of dissent in society.

Stay tuned as we continue to follow Koh's journey and the unfolding legal drama that could have broader implications for activists across the nation.