Citizen Woon
Saturday, 14 June 2008, 7:00 am |
Farquhar
The Attorney-General is right that we need a real debate on human rights, but he probably won’t like the answers
SINGAPORE‘S ATTORNEY-GENERAL Professor Walter Woon caused a little stir last week with his comments about human rights “fanatics”.
The good Professor subsequently clarified that he was merely referring to those who thought that their opinion of what constituted rights had primacy over all other views. Human rights are subjective in nature, he noted, and it is up to Singaporeans - not outsiders - to debate and decide on what these rights should be.
Professor Woon is surely right to point out that there is no fixed consensus on where to draw the line between individual rights and the communitarian good. For example, homosexuals are treated differently in the United States compared with Europe; abortion is legal in the US but not in Chile.
But there is a consensus - not just in Western countries but in an increasing number of Asian and Latin American countries as well - on some basic inalienable norms, such as freedom of speech and association or from arbitrary arrest. And the fact that Singapore is poorly rated by international human rights organisations such as Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch shows that there is consensus abroad that Singapore doesn’t live up to these fundamentals.
Whether a similar consensus exists in Singapore is debatable, but there are reasons to think that some Singaporeans would like to see a broader definition of human rights. For example, rights-themed NGOs like Maruah or People Like Us enjoy respectable support at their events. The blogosphere, which provides one gauge of the kinds of issues that are underplayed in the mainstream discourse, is usually replete with calls for liberalisation. Political parties campaigning on such agendas garnered a third of the vote in the 2006 election. It might not even be out of place to suggest that many of those who voted for the ruling party would not be adverse to such reforms, should the fallacy that having human rights will somehow compromise Singapore’s economic prospects and social order be put to rest.
The real problem is with how such a consensus is reached in Singapore. Unlike other democratic polities where a consensus would be constructed from the plurality of citizens’ opinions, in Singapore it is the product of the government merely enforcing its outlook through the institutions of state. It is the people’s choice, the government argues, because they have voted for it. But choice is only meaningful if there are genuine alternatives, and suppressing the emergence of any potential substitutes by taking a sledgehammer to basic freedoms of expression, association and due process pretty much guarantees a skewed outcome.
So Professor Woon might have neglected to mention how the inherent prejudices in the system render his proposal for a ‘constructive dialogue’ hollow to a large extent. It is noteworthy that - perhaps somewhat in breach of the spirit of dialogue that he is advocating - the Attorney-General’s Chambers he’s in charge of will be pressing charges against an individual for simply trying to stir up some debate about the judiciary in Singapore. In the end what would probably emerge from the esteemed Professor’s intentions is an orchestrated public relations exercise, involving carefully vetted groups debating within the out-of-bound markers. The danger of such a sterilised dialogue is that it might tempt Professor Woon or the government to mistake its own opinion as the mainstream view.
More importantly, Professor Woon misses the mark with his comments because, by his definition, the government is just as guilty of being a “fanatic” in believing that all Singaporeans must conform to its notion of the common good or where to draw the line with human rights. Surely Singaporeans deserve a bigger say.
The evolving notion of citizenship
The reality is that no one - neither the government nor any individual - has a monopoly on the concept of rights. It is constantly evolving, but one account of its development is provided by British sociologist T H Marshall1.
Marshall subsumed the disparate strands of what are now termed human rights under the notion of citizenship, which he defined as consisting of civil, political and social rights. Rooted in the British context, Marshall traced the incremental development of these three groups of rights in eighteenth, nineteenth and twentieth centuries respectively. His contention is that a small group of elites always had these rights, but the development of citizenship proceeded as ever bigger groups of people came into possession of these rights in successive stages.
For example, with the winding down of the feudal era, civil rights, “composed of the rights necessary for individual freedom - liberty of the person, freedom of speech, thought and faith, the right to own property… and the right to justice” became more widespread. This gradually led to the wider population’s acquisition of political rights - the right to participate in the country’s political institutions - as they attained the requisite economic independence from their feudal masters.
Marshall’s unique contribution was the concept of social rights. This was society’s obligation to ensure that all citizens had “a modicum of economic welfare and security to…live the life of a civilised being according to the standards prevailing in the society.” Marshall thought that the problems engendered by material inequality in an industrialising Britain spurred the demands for social rights in order to level the playing field and to ensure that the lower classes could exercise other rights properly. The right to due process, for example, was useless if one couldn’t afford a decent lawyer. A citizen was therefore only a full citizen if he enjoyed all three kinds of rights.
While Marshall’s ideas have helped to explain certain types of social phenomenon, such as the emergence of the welfare state in Western countries, he has been criticised for being overly neat and simplistic. For one thing his idea of progress is a bit too linear, even though some elements of civil rights are acquired after political rights and vice versa. Furthermore, Marshall’s rather conservative outlook meant that his conception of social rights were practically a subset of political rights.
In spite of these limitations, Marshall’s work does offer two predictions for Singapore. First is that the demand for greater civil, political and eventually social rights, is inevitable, meaning that the opinions of those whom Professor Woon dismisses as “fanatics” today might become mainstream one day. One can already trace a similar linear process in Singapore. Many elements of civil rights were present during colonial times, but Singaporeans only came into political rights at the onset of independence. However, as these rights were essentially limited under the heavy-handed rule of the People’s Action Party, Singaporeans started demanding that such civil and political rights be expanded as they grew more prosperous.
The clamour for social rights has also begun. Rising inequality has spurred calls for the government to do more for those left behind, a fact that the government itself recognises. The Singapore government, with its highly conservative outlook, might find this distasteful, but it should recognise that this does present an opportunity for entrenching its rule. A cynical Bismarck had preserved the German monarchy by buying off calls for political rights with social rights by introducing the world’s first social insurance policies in the 1880s.
The second is Marshall’s observation that while the development of citizenship did not come without struggle, the British ruling class was crucially able to guide conflict through constitutional channels by
doling out reforms in small parcels. But they could not have done so without the feedback and legitimacy provided by Britain’s lively democracy, which allowed disparate groups to have their say and influence the decision-making process. The lack of a similar democratic apparatus in Singapore is therefore worrying.
In the end, citizenship is about equality - the ideal that every citizen gets an equal voice no matter his personal circumstances. That’s why Citizen Woon, as well as his fellow citizens in positions of power, might want to pay more attention to those so-called “fanatics”.
***
1 Thomas Humphrey Marshall, Citizenship and Social Class and other essays, (Cambridge University Press, Second edition, 1950)
————–
Cartoon courtesy of My Sketchbook.
Who is Farquhar? Read about him here.
He can be reached at : farquhar.toc@gmail.com
————–
Email this to a Friend
Bookmark this
I see Woon’s points from a different perspective. I think activists are jumping the gun a little too fast. Here’s my opinion.
http://wherebearsroamfree.blogspot.com/2008/06/human-rights-walter-woon-is-commenting.html
excellent insight, and well written.
Solo Bear:
Human rights is indeed often misused as a tool by extremists and other dissidents. However, to extinguish all notion of discussion about human rights because of this is to operate on a patient with an axe; there are merits to the discussion, and one with the people’s mandate such as the Government should take it upon itself as its duty to listen and reflect on the voices of its people.
Inconsistencies are replicated all over the world, in every imaginable subject of contention; this also does not translate into a reason to discourage discussion.
Farquhar has very accurately pointed out societal trends as they will play out in the coming years as inferred from precedence, and makes a persuasive argument to cease prevention of the inevitable.
the role of action, or inaction is irrelevant here. the crux, is of the freedom to enter into an intellectual discussion and for all parties involved to carefully learn the merits and detriments of the various views purported, without resorting to lawsuits and unnecessary derogatory labeling.
At the very least, I think every Singaporean citizen should
have the very basic freedom to question the integrity of
our Ministers on account of public opinion and concern.
There is absolutely no reason why anyone should be sued
for defamation in the same manner that TT Durai silenced
his critics through defamation suits.
I’m sure those political cases similarly pursued by our infamous
policitians would have been thrown out by any Court of Law which
truly values basic Human Rights and true Freedom of Speech.
he has lived in the ivory tower for far too long…out of touch completely! What does he knows about human rights?
It does not give me much comfort that the honourable AG has brought up such a fundamental matter and that he has lumped it with another totally negative opposite “fanatics”.
Just hope that his role as a AG will continue to uphold the sacred sanctity of human rights and that he does not do the slightest thing to lessen it.
“Human rights are subjective in nature, he noted, and it is up to Singaporeans - not outsiders - to debate and decide on what these rights should be.”
I will only agree as far as it includes all Singaporeans not some Singaporeans.
Solo bear, I share your view.
Arguing from a global perspective? Any further excuse? Our own youths have yet to be tended and you are implying that he is commenting on the adults of some other countries and teaching them how to such eggs.
Solo Bear and Lim,
I dont share your views. Good Work Farquhar.
FG
Silencer,
I am not propagating silencing all talk of Human Rights. I am pointing out the fact that Woon did not pinpoint any party or example, yet his critics ASSUME, that he meant it in the Singapore (read PAP) context.
He may have well meant it in the global context, keeping in mind that he has been an ambassador overseas, for many years.
If what we in Singapore want is more freedom of speech from our government, we can still discuss that as an issue, without clouding it with “Human Rights”, which has a bigger, global meaning.
Black feline,
Woon has been living overseas many years. We are all just armchair critics. He knows the global scene better than anyone of us.
To the rest who are “supporters” of Human Rights,
One of the statements issued by Human Rights Groups is the fair and equal treatment and opportunities for immigrants. Any takers out there to support the government’s call to support and promote immigrant workforce in Singapore?
Thought so. There’s Woon’s point on “the selective process” of Human Rights supporters.
Solo Bear:
“However, Woon’s words must be seen in the global context. That’s because Human Rights is about global issues and not just Singapore’s.”
I agree with what you say about human right in global perspective. However Woon’s word are not likely to direct at global perspective but locally. The coincidence at which he put this remark clear indicate that it is used to explain for Dr Chee’s action. It will be appropiate not to even comment about worldwide issues now when we ourselves didn’t even experience what is meant as human right locally. Woon’s word comes a time when the government need to justify their action again Dr Chee, and it comes in handy using a bootlicker just like Chua sister. If they really worry about global perspective then he should ought to talk human before the Dr Chee’s case, not in the midst.
The problem with this government is that they take thing to extreme. They say that Singapore will not experience the poverity of other poor countries again, so they ramp up exorbitant reserves at the expenses of citizen. So what’s happened in the end ? Not only the citizen’s need is been reduced, but the reserve end up helping in frailing bank where even future profitability is unlikely to be seen and touched by the citizen. It becomes a exploitation in its own league.
In the same way, they say that Singapore should not have protest, so they eradicate human right so in the end Singaporean can only eat bitter pills. An unfortunate consequence is that flood gate is open to great flux of foreigners coming in Singapore resulting in suppressing the wages and job opportunity. Notwithstanding the government stand to benefit greatly from the foreigner’s contribution of money. Without human right, the government will take the extreme case to benefit themselves more than to the citizen.
We should be astute to detect such intention of Woon. If he really talk about global human right, he should have EQ to keep his mouth shut and not let his IQ to do than raking now. So he either he lack EQ or he direct his remark at Dr Chee.
As I says before, smart politician will never mention names or party that is his focus of remark but the time of coincidence of remark is the best indicator.
No one really asked for extreme human right in Singapore. JUst some right to demand the accountability and responsibility from the government rather than just the usual ‘move on’ tactics deployed by the coffers.
@Solobear
“Any takers out there to support the government’s call to support and promote immigrant workforce in Singapore?”
Hmm, wonder why as we debate about seat belts and safety, there is no talk on foreign workers sitting dangerous on the back of overcrowded trucks?
Also, promoting and supporting them means that one is going to house 12,000 of them beside the eerie Chua Chu Kang cemetery?
Dear People,
That there are conflicts and contradictions between Human Rights and Islamic Law - is highlighted in the article linked below :
http://www.iheu.org/node/2949
I think Walter Woon was alluding to this type of conflict of laws. However - to accuse some of these Human Rights activists as fanatics is hitting below the belt.
We cannot take cultural relativism too far. Otherwise one can justify the Myanmar junta’s actions during the cyclone Nargis aftermath as being part and parcel of Myanmar’s political culture !
Not acceptable to me !
What about bride burning in India and FGM in Sudan ?
How about Lina Joy in Malaysia ?
Or the Ahmadiyyah in Indonesia ?
The way I see it - Walter Woon and company are just not willing to stand up for the obvious - just in case others may point out the PAP’s lack of willingness to accept the Freedom of Assembly and Freedom of Expression.
After all - people who live in glass houses shouldn’t be throwing stones at others !
Daniel,
I stick by my argument that Woon made no mention of any party or incident and as such, at best, his critics are assuming he made those words with local implications.
However, that is not the main point. The main point is what do Singaporeans want? If we want a bigger voice and non-suppression of the oppostion, then let’s all just discuss that. Why the need to bring in Human Rights at all?
By bringing in Human Rights, are these activists not trying to lobby for OUTSIDE support, to pressure the PAP? Are we not opening ourselves to OUTSIDE influence? What if that outside influence wants us to lobby for them, against ANOTHER nation – like China’s oppression of Tibet?
Are you now willing to support them in their fight against China, in return for their fight for you against PAP’s oppression?
I believe Woon is wise enough to see the above and I believe it is in that context, Woon is talking about, when he mentioned the “standards of others”.
Let’s stick to what we want, ie discuss how we can stem PAP’s oppression against the opposition and leave the big, unknown Human Rights stuff, that comes with a thousand strings attached, alone.
Anonymous,
The fair treatment for immigrant workers IS part of Human Rights. If you do not wish to support that, you fall into the category of what Woon describes as “selective”. You have chosen the part of Human Rights you like, and discard the part you do not.
However, when you expect Human Rights groups to support you, they expect you to accept their terms wholesale – including support the rights of immigrants who are going to place you out of jobs.
Human Rights groups IS an unknown monster. Are you willing to do the monster’s bidding? If not, let’s drop this Human Rights stuff and tackle PAP’s oppression ourselves.
We don’t need no monster behind our backs, telling us what to do.
“However, that is not the main point. The main point is what do Singaporeans want? If we want a bigger voice and non-suppression of the oppostion, then let’s all just discuss that. Why the need to bring in Human Rights at all?
By bringing in Human Rights, are these activists not trying to lobby for OUTSIDE support, to pressure the PAP? Are we not opening ourselves to OUTSIDE influence? What if that outside influence wants us to lobby for them, against ANOTHER nation – like China’s oppression of Tibet?”
However discussion hasn’t bring us anywhere (it’s not that this discussion about human right is new at all, it is been with us since Singapore independence) and in fact it is constantly been downplayed and move on when the Emperor delivered his heavenly edict here and then, with finally unleashed his ‘loyal by money’ coffers to execute his plan to suppress the voice and remove the dissident (eg decredit, bankrupt, demean, denigrate, remove, dishonour opposing party , these terms are not new to us anymore , are they ?)
“Are we not opening ourselves to OUTSIDE influence?” The fact that we have already subjected ourselves to OUTSIDE influence when our dear government endorse globalization and world economy openly with great influx of foreigners and foreign investment into our main land, don’t you think so ? The government can’t eat both side of the cakes and still pretend nothing will happen. I still remember recently government hire a western foreign gay researcher in some sort Cancer or earthquake centre upon the announcement of the immense surplus promising that his gay right will be respected in Singapore. That’s gay right is in fact a form of human right (unless anyone want to deny that as well).
It is even more so that we are using OUTSIDE help all along. Those Web 2.0, Twitter and video services like YouTube, are from the USA, isn’t it ? These external and foreigner’s service are been used freely without charges to create awareness and promote human right.
If the change could not be brought internally then change need to be brought externally to expedite the process. Is Singaporean think that change can only be brought only internally ? Change have to be brought both internally and externally and definitely I do not think that political changes that so much entrenched to the advantages of the ruling party can be brought to change in pace of citizen’s expectation.
I agree with you that Singaporean will need to know what they want. Frankly, many are so brain-dead and fear the future so much that they rather live a day as it is rather than care what happen to their future and next generation. As long as they have a bread and butter with no risk to their live to eat and sustain each day, the majority are just as contented to stay with the status quo.
Dear Solo Bear,
You cannot tackle the PAP without the Freedom of Expression and the Freedom of Assembly. The rules here in Singapore are loaded in favour of the PAP. That is why Chee Soon Juan does NOT play by the PAP’s rules and prefers civil disobedience instead.
The fact is - you cannot effectively oppose the PAP without Human Rights !
Sixty-four years ago on Sept. 12, 1944, Gen. Seishiro Itagaki of Japan formally surrendered Singapore to Lord Mountbatten. The people of our tiny island city were liberated by the blood sacrifice of the “fanatic” Westerners.
One day, Singapore may be threatened again, perhaps by Malaysia seeking to claim back its lost jewel, or by some regime in Indonesia jealous of our wealth. The rich and repressive city-state will cry for help to the West, despite their cultural quirks about freedom and human rights.
Continuous national insults upon Western cultures will have consequences in
the future. At that moment, some future Western leaders will remember what
Citizen Woon of Singapore has said about human rights and outside
interference, and their reply would most probably be:
“Defend yourselves with your own righteousness.”
On the subject of human rights in our nation, what is it for, our Pledge which we recite for donkey years every morning?
Any comments from the floor?
Human Rights is for every human, there is no such thing as Singapore Human Rights and others’ Human Rights.
‘Human Rights is subjective by nature…’, it is only subjective when it gets abused and when not defined by justice and reasonability(reasonableness).
patriot.
Common Singaporean: Wants no more than stable shelter, food, income
Youth of today: Wants more than just Gucci, Rebok, Zara Sushi, Korean Food, Fench Food. They want the world’s best underwear to cover themselves. Thinking of Human Rights? The right to have branded goods.
Shanmugam and Woon were recently appointed Law Minister and AG respectively. Both have made some controversial statements. I take it as a way of announcing their presence to the general public.
Freedom of Assembly is not going to happen with this gov’t and its paranoia. Not for a long while. Permit given only during elections.
The focus should be on Freedom of Expression before we think about Freedom of Assemby. We are already expressing ourselves in TOC but there is a need to know the level of participation , the numbers, especially those who will be eligible to vote in 2011. I think TOC has to come up with some kind of mass marketing strategy to reach out to the public.
The increasing number of people to this website is an indication of TOC’s credibility and success. Hopefully the people will read through most of the articles, comments and be enlightened.
solo bear,
speak for yourself..u are indeed an armchair critic. I am not…i have studied, worked,involved as a lay person..etc overseas for not less than 15 years 9 (currently in the land of camels) in total. So I know what im talking about. And for your infor…i know how he was brought up…for me to know and for you to find out!
Claire C
“Youth of today: Wants more than just Gucci, Rebok, Zara Sushi, Korean Food, Fench Food. They want the world’s best underwear to cover themselves. Thinking of Human Rights? The right to have branded goods.”
You are right girl. Youth (emphasis intended). How about when they reach an age which is ripe when you can start to call them mid adulthood. Perhaps they will start to think differently. I used to to think differently when young - naively so about many things. You just cannot keep on thinking and talking about just Gucci, Rebok, Zara Sushi, Korean Food, Fench Food for too long.
Blackfeline,
I sense arrogance in your tone. Your experience is but a pittance compared to Woon’s. He definitely has more experience on global issues than you. Working and studying abroad need not necessarily translate into wisdom.
Take a look at your comments. You simply claim that Woon is in an ivory tower, not knowing anything about Human Rights.
So, what do YOU know? I have taken the trouble to show you the double standards of the west – which is in line with Woon’s statement about “selection”.
What have YOU done to demolish my arguments in the link I gave – or for that matter, demolish Woon’s arguments?
I note that you have not supported any of your statements, be it here or in my blog. What good then is boasting to everyone of your 15 years overseas, if you cannot even show you have benefited in experience to be able to apply it?
Daniel,
But the Human Rights groups have not had any effect either! Opposition members still get sued, people still get detained without trials etc. So? What makes you say that Human Rights is the way?
Syed Alwi,
If change is what you really want, then there is only ONE WAY – THE VOTE.
Unfortunately, time and time again, for decades, when it comes to the crunch, there will be people who will be afraid of change and afraid of uncertainty etc.
So what if we vote PAP out of power? That IS democracy in progress, isn’t it?
So for all the talk about this Human Rights baloney - sorry for such a word, but I truly think that it is what it is, bearing in mind all the hypocrisies of the world’s politics it involves - the simple one-man-one vote could just be the remedy to end “oppression” by the PAP.
Unfortunately, Singaporeans, being kiasu Singaporeans, when it comes to the crunch, will falter, wilt and go soft in the legs – like one opposition member who unashamedly announced he did not vote for the opposition.
So rather than being beholden to an outside force, which will dictate what we should do or not do (like what Woon says), why not just go for it - vote the PAP out and all oppression like the ISA detentions, suing of opposition members etc, will stop.
My take is that Singaporeans don’t have the bloody guts to vote PAP out of power. Yet, they hope an outside force would pressure PAP to stop all its abuse, and yet still, keep PAP itself in power!
Ha ha ha. Sorry, it doesn’t work that way.
You want PAP to end oppression, then end PAP’s rule. Go for the vote and dump this Human Rights stuff.
Don’t dare to dump PAP? Then live with PAP’s oppression. Period.
That’s how I see it. Plain and simple. What need for Human Rights which is nothing but baloney, when the vote is there for Singaporeans to use it, yet time and time again, citizens return PAP to power?
Any more arguments why we should use the Baloney Human Rights Argument to end PAP oppression when the vote is there to be used, yet not used?
Dear Solo Bear,
Vote ? And do you honestly think that the GRC system plus the persecution of Opposition figures - will lead to a fair and free elections ?
You must be very naive !
The entire MSM and Government machinery is used to favour the PAP. As if that is not bad enough - we have the GRC system and laws that will favour the PAP.
Its hard enough to even persuade people to stand for elections under the Opposition banner - for fear of persecution.
The vote is meaningful only if the elections is free and fair…..not otherwise.
That is why I openly admire Chee Soon Juan. He is honest enough to admit that one cannot win by playing the PAP’s game. He is right. People like Low Thia Khiang are just too afraid…..and very naive to think that they can be an effective Opposition by playing the PAP’s game. You cannot. You must first break free of the system…………….
Ooops ! Forgot to say something Solo Bear !
Try and imagine what will happen if one day - the PAP becomes corrupt (presumably after LKY is gone). Without the Freedom of Speech and the Freedom of Assembly - how will you deal with a tyrannical and corrupt Government ?
Without Human Rights - we will literally be the Sheep in Aidil Omar’s Sheep City - and headed for slaughter !
Human Rights is the only guarantee that we have against tyranny ! Over my dead body will I surrender my rights ! Maybe you wanna surrender yours - but not me. As for me - I want my Human Rights…………….
Daniel said:
Frankly, many are so brain-dead and fear the future so much that they rather live a day as it is rather than care what happen to their future and next generation. As long as they have a bread and butter with no risk to their live to eat and sustain each day, the majority are just as contented to stay with the status quo.
Claire C said:
Youth of today: Wants more than just Gucci, Rebok, Zara Sushi, Korean Food, Fench Food. They want the world’s best underwear to cover themselves. Thinking of Human Rights? The right to have branded goods.
If the Silent Majority chooses the Right to material possessions over and above Rights like Freedom of Speech, this I think should be respected even if we disagree with such common ideals.
The TOC commenter is an interest group and this should be kept in mind. Try to educated them to the Rights point of view certainly, it may even be in their best interests but talking down to someone would be counter productive.
Syed,
So what if the entire MSM and machinery favours the PAP? That even happens in the US – the very land where Human Rights supposedly originates.
Here is the big test.
1. Do Singaporeans have the choice to vote the opposition? Yes/no.
2. Is there anything to stop Singaporeans from putting a cross on opposition column on the voting slip? Yes/no?
3. Are Singaporeans still able to vote for the opposition, in spite of the redrawing of boundaries of the GRC, suing of opposition, heavy machinery of the MSM? Yes/no.
If you answered yes to all, then heck, what heavy machinery of MSM, what unfair practice of redrawing boundaries blah, blah, blah, are you blaming, so much so that when it comes to the crunch, 60+% voters fail to put that important ‘X” on the opposition column?
Well, truth is that 60+% of Singaporeans still vote for the PAP!
So come off all excuses that Singaporeans cannot do this or that, when in fact, Singaporeans HAVE THE CHOICE, yet CHOOSE PAP as their government the last 40 over years.
If you truly believe in democracy, that IS democracy.
What you want is to have 30+% opposition, to reflect that 30+% opposition vote. Too bad, it doesn’t work that way. Even Bush won only 50+% of the votes, yet he is the THE President of the US. He did not share power with the Democrat candidate, Kerry. He had it all – 100% presidency.
Wake up. 60+% voted for PAP. That is MAJORITY. If you believe in democracy and Human rights, that is fair and square.
I am no PAP supporter. But at least I learn to live with the fact that 60+% of the population want the PAP, so we have to live with it.
How does Human Rights come into the picture at all, if Singaporeans have the choice to oust the PAP, yet still choose the PAP?
As for the time when PAP does become corrupt, my question to you is this – Why wait for PAP to be corrupt? Why not vote them out NOW?
Why not vote them out NOW, because you feel that they oppress opposition, stem your rights etc?
Dear Solo Bear,
No it is NOT democracy ! For it to be democratic, there must NOT be any persecution of Opposition politicians, There must be Freedom of Expression and so on. And yes - quite a number of people vote the PAP out of FEAR………..
I would put it this way - 60+ % of the population voted the PAP under non-democratic conditions and because Opposition figures were persecuted.
This is NOT a free and fair choice ! Had it been a truly free and fair elections - the results would be significantly different.
Finally - the GRC system SKEWS the votes in favour of the PAP.
I draw the line here.
In any case - what will you do should the PAP become corrupt and tyrannical once LKY is gone ?
Without Human Rights and an effective Opposition - we have nothing to check on the incumbent Government. Today - while LKY is still alive - the PAP is clean. But what of tomorrow ? What guarantees do we have if not for Human Rights and an effective Opposition ?
@Solobear
I have read your link and while it also appear to be forceful and insightful, there is one glaring flaw which you have not addressed: Your equation of human rights to that of Western foreign policy, in particular the foreign policy of the United States.
Indeed, you have given tonnes of indisputable evidence as to how the US has made use of human rights to further its global interests. But does it undermine the legitimacy of human rights in general? Given your knowledge, i am sure you can tell the difference. Is it fair to paint every human right activist as American apologists? Sure, i too find Washington disgusting by removing democratically-elected leaders of Iran, Chile in 1953 and 1973. But by seeing demands for democracy as an extension of the US foreign policy INDISCRIMINATELY, does it occur to you that you are also helping the argument of people like General Than Shwe? By linking demands for constitutional democracy to nothing more than the cogs of US foreign policy, you have regretfully discredited the just cause of people like Aung San Suu Kyi. Does it mean that just because you detest US-supported “democrcats” like Ngo Dinh Diem, Syngman Rhee, Chiang Kai-shek, Batista, Mobutu etc, that you can have all the justification in making the causes of people like Aung San Suu Kyi, Nelson Mandela, Gusmao Xanana, Václav Havel etc less than credible? I don’t think it do these extraordinary individuals any justice.
Your blog is well-written. However, it looks more like an attack on US exceptionalism and its hypocritical foreign policy. Why should human rights and democracy be dragged together down the manhole with the foreign policy of the US? Is it justified?
Frankly, what’s wrong with democracy as the ideal mode of governance? Given history’s experiment with despotism, absolute monarchy, theocracy, military government, communist regimes, Nazism, personalist regimes, we have yet to witnessed any electorate of a democratic country voting itself back to any autocratic form of government that exist before. I guess Churchill said it very well, “Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others being tried before.” No matter how distasteful people in a democracy found its politicians, none has opted to go back to any forms of autocracy. Because at the very least, a functioning democracy respects human dignity, the full right to make a choice with the minimum level of undue influence. You seem to ask democracy to be the best form of government with no flaws at all. Is such a benchmark fair? No form of government will fulfill that. But compare to other regimes, democracy give the individual dignity and worth by respecting the choice of the voters.
Dear Anonymous who made the above post to Solo Bear,
Bravo and kudos to your very intelligently argued post. You are correct. Just because the USA has made some bad decisions before - it does not mean that democracy and human rights must be thrown out the door.
Liberal democracy and human rights is the best form of governance so far. And yes - they are the vanguards against tyranny and oppression.
Today - while LKY is still alive - the PAP is clean. But what of tomorrow ? It seems to me that democracy, human rights and an effective Opposition are the only tools by which the citizens of any nation can use to fight against tyranny, corruption and oppression.
I agree with you 100% !
@Solobear
“What have YOU done to demolish my arguments in the link I gave – or for that matter, demolish Woon’s arguments?”
The controversy is calling demands for human rights as “fanatical”. That’s labelling done in a very bad taste. Because human rights encompasses freedom of speech and expression, Freedom of religion, Freedom from want and Freedom from fear, it allows the important room of “we can agree to disagree”.
As Voltaire had declared, “I may not agree with what you have to say but i will defend your right to say it”
Chris Patten stated, “In a democracy everybody has a right to be represented, including the jerks.”
Because in a democracy, dissidence is tolerated. Rights activists are also fighting for the rights of even those who disagree with them.
In an autocracy, they have the real fanatics there: They don’t disagree/argue/reason with you, they just simply give their opponents a bullet to save all that trouble.
Dear People,
There ARE conflicts and contradictions between Islamic Law and Universal Declaration of Human Rights as discussed in the article in the link below :
http://www.iheu.org/node/2949
In this sense - Walter Woon has a point. I can accept some small - very small - loosening of Human Rights in a multi-cultural setting.
BUT and its a big but -
We cannot take cultural relativism too far. Otherwise one can justify the Myanmar junta’s actions during the cyclone Nargis aftermath as being part and parcel of Myanmar’s political culture !
Look - the only guarantee we have against tyranny, corruption and oppression IS Human Rights and Democracy !
If you give up your rights - then how will you defend yourself against tyranny ?
Walter Woon better have a good answer to that question……………..
@Solobear
And your example of Algeria is flawed because certain FIS elements were definitely intent on establishing a Islamic theocracy through the ballot box. They want to use democratic means to subvert democracy, not unlike Hitler making use of the channels of Weimar democracy in order to destroy the Weimar democracy itself.
Ali Belhadj, the VP of FIS declared that “There is no democracy in Islam” and that “f people vote against the Law of God… this is nothing other than blasphemy. The ulama will order the death of the offenders who have substituted their authority for that of God” and that he is a die-hard sex segregationist by opposing the right to work for women.
I am indeed appalled when you classified such elements as “democratic”.
Dear Solobear
And your point about “However, in China, the people called for a democracy, US style.” in your link.
This is clearly a misread of the Tiananmen incident. The students started the protest because they felt that the party hardliners had done the late party liberal reformer Hu Yaobang great injustice and wanted the party to revise the official view of him.
Many students saw them as heirs to the 1919 May Fourth Movement, the Chinese nationalist movement calling for self-determination, democracy and democracy in the wake of perceived humiliating treatment by the great powers in the Treaty of Versailles.
Your linking of US exceptionalism to the Tiananmen incident seems to be historically inaccurate.
“The real problem is with how such a consensus is reached in Singapore. Unlike other democratic polities where a consensus would be constructed from the plurality of citizens’ opinions, in Singapore it is the product of the government merely enforcing its outlook through the institutions of state. It is the people’s choice, the government argues, because they have voted for it. But choice is only meaningful if there are genuine alternatives, and suppressing the emergence of any potential substitutes by taking a sledgehammer to basic freedoms of expression, association and due process pretty much guarantees a skewed outcome.
Excellently put, my friend. Just last year, PAP MP Josephine Teo said this in response to a ST Insight article, which I wrote about here: “That is what we are elected to do” - MP Josephine Teo
She said:
I replied that Government’s job is to intervene where necessary. That is what we are elected to do. Singaporeans will have to judge whether the intervention has helped to create better results..
That really is the crux of the problem - not only in human rights issues but in all aspects of life in Singapore. The thinking is that just because they were elected, they have a blank cheque to do as they like, effectively.
As for the AG, taking such a stance, and doing so in such a gathering of lawyers, says something about his attitude. Some may say that he was speaking with a global perspective. Well, he could have clarified that in his speech itself. He could have said: “I am speaking from a general and global perspective.”
But he did not.
Also, as with many govt ministers, when alternatives are asked for, they immediately dismiss them by citing extreme cases. In this instance, AG Woon cites ‘fanatics’ of human rights.
I think such remarks are somewhat insulting to the many good, honest and passionate human rights activists - here and abroad - who do very good work indeed.
AG Woon should have qualified his remarks and made them clearer. Failure to do so has given rise to the current controversy. Now, as an AG and a former ambassador, one would have expected that he would have chosen his words carefully.
That he did not shows his lack of political acumen and empathy.
Quite unbecoming, actually.
@Solobear
To add on, the target in Tiananmen later involved protesting against rampant corruption in the CCP. Their focus of protest was the hardline premier of Li Peng. They NEVER called for the overthrow of the CCP regime and replace it with “US style” democracy.
Indeed, Li Peng would later use the label of “counterrevolutionaries” on the students to declare martial law in Beijing and gun them down on June 4.
Anonymous on June 14th, 2008 11.30 pm said:
we have yet to witnessed any electorate of a democratic country voting itself back to any autocratic form of government that exist before.
I would just like to add a factual note. The Wiemar Republic ended when Hitler was voted into office. Democracy can go bad on the other hand a Democracy with good institutions can go very, very far. In a similar vain, take a look at the current troubles in former Eastern Bloc states. Among the many other problems that they have are that some members of far right parties get voted into various governments (mostly at a city level).
In the long run I think that proper Constitutional Democracy based on fundamental Rights (the composition which we as a People should agree on and not have imposed) would be the way that society should move forward. But bare in mind that there will be major and unanticipated costs involved.
The current Government’s parentalism I feel is pretty myopic and would limit the long term prospects of Singapore especially in terms of our human capital development. Without Rights we can’t make decisions (except Gucci or Prada) which means we can’t take Responsibilities for our own actions.
For our sakes, I would like to know how to manage this transition.
@Solobear
“Yet another example is the China’s Tibet vs US occupation in Iraq - Activists have been quick to point out that China has been oppressing Tibet. The Olympic Torch protests bear testimony to that. Yet no protest of US treatment of innocent civilians (including torture)?”
No reporters were allowed into the Tibet “Autonomous” Region and when they were finally allowed, the Chinese authorities brought them to see “how happy the Tibetans were” but later the “lamas” being interviewed were actually impostors.
I am definitely an opponent to US aggression in Iraq. In fact, if you do read the news, many activists have staged protests against US unilateral actions. They made everyday counts of military and civilian deaths. Scandals at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo were exposed and there were worldwide condemnation and outrage. Various activists have filed criminal charges in places such as France, Germany, Sweden against the chief architect of the Iraqi invasion, former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld.
Perhaps all these were a bit too conveniently ignored if one cannot distinguish between the true fight for rights and those pretentious policies of US imperialists.
@Sprachen Sie Singlish
“The Wiemar Republic ended when Hitler was voted into office.”
Well-said. But also bear in mind that Hitler despite all the physical violence, intimidation and dirty tricks like the Reichstag fire, never got more than 50% of the votes in the PR system of the Weimar Republic even at the height of his popularity. He achieved power because he was able to make use of Franz von Papen and the Centre Party and become Chancellor through trickery and violence. He later used intimidation to frighten the Reichstag deputies into voting for the infamous “Enabling Act”, the basis of his dictatorial power by lining the Assembly building with SA members.
So the notion of using this as an example of people voting back into autocracy is only a half-truth because they forgot how Hitler used violence to dismantle the restraints of the Weimar constitution.
And after Hitler’s quest for world domination which laid waste to Germany and given the horrors of the Holocaust, I don’t think the Federal Republic of Germany is in any danger of voting itself into the “German Democratic Republic”. After all, democracy is about maturing and learning.
@Sprachen Sie Singlish
“The Wiemar Republic ended when Hitler was voted into office.”
Another point to add. Weimar is an exceptional case because it had the unfortunate fate of being linked with the humiliating Treaty of Versailles. Weimar democracy from day one was perceived as the symbol of national humiliation, defeat and become the victim of the “stab in the back” theory.
solo bear,
which cave r u from? i do not waste time with simpleton like u. Your argument is utter rubbish. I dont have to prove anything to u…u can suck up to him for all i care.
blackfeline - pls refrain from personal attacks. Thanks.
TOC Editor
@Solobear
So, what do YOU know? I have taken the trouble to show you the double standards of the west – which is in line with Woon’s statement about “selection”.
To speak of the West as a united homogeneous bloc is perhaps a little too much of a simple generalization. In fact, if you have notice the headlines in world news, George W Bush and his entourage were most unwelcome in “western capitals” such as London, Paris, Brussels, Berlin where people held anti-war demonstrations whenever they know George is in town. Surprisingly, George was quite warmly received in Asian capitals such as Beijing without those demonstrating crowds despite the PRC’s repeated slamming of double standards in human rights issue.
@Sprachen Sie Singlish
“Among the many other problems that they have are that some members of far right parties get voted into various governments (mostly at a city level).”
To this, i would refer you to the French Presidential Elections 2002. Incumbent Jacques Chirac is facing off the far-right ultranationalist Le Pen from the National Front in round two of the election. For all you know, Chirac wasn’t a president well-liked by the French voters and had the dubious reputation of being the most unpopular occupant of the Elysee Palace in the history of the 5th republic. But face with the choice between an unpopular centre-right president and a far-right xenophobic ultra-nationalist, the French voters gave the unpopular Chirac the biggest victory ever: 82.21% against Le Pen’s 17.19%.
@Solobear
From your link
“As a comparison, is the American Presidential Election system any more democratic? What “choice” do you really have, when there are effectively only 2 parties you can only vote? Is this really democracy?
However, the same activists who are quick to point out that the people of Russia or China have no choice, are dead silent that Americans are not too far off either. On the other hand, even third world countries have multiple parties you can choose from.”
Not trying to defend US for its foreign policy is one of the most doubtful thing i have ever found. However, no democracy can be 100% ideal, like Churchill had said, “Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all others”. It is the best of the worst. In the US, when Americans think George Bush’s wings need to be clipped, they voted in a Democratic-controlled Congress in mid-term elections, effectively checking his authority and turning him into a lame duck president in order to express their dissatisfaction with his performance. Can you do that in China? That’s popular sovereignty at work which is absent in China, Zimbabwe, Myanmar, Egypt etc. Popular sovereignty is is the belief that the legitimacy of the state is created by the will or consent of its people, who are the source of all political power. By voting in a Democratic Congress, popular sovereignty has been exercised, can you say the same for China?
In case you do not know, China is formally a a multi-party state under the leadership of the Communist Party of China in the popular front model. Parties such as China Democratic League, China Democratic National Construction Association, Chinese Peasants’, Workers’ Democratic Party and Revolutionary Committee of the Kuomintang in fact participated in state bodies such as the National People’s Congress and the Chinese People’s Political Consultative Congress. Technically, the Chinese people have more parties to choose from, but do you seriously consider the PRC a better “democracy” than say the United States?
Solar Bear
“So what if the entire MSM and machinery favours the PAP? That even happens in the US – the very land where Human Rights supposedly originates.”
You are almost reaching desperate end and sounding illogical.
I have more worries of people like those in our MSM than those from the opposition parties and even PAP. At least, it is acceptable and expected that the latter groups will indulge in all the usual political mud-slinging.
But for MSM to take side ? Oh I forgot, can I say that MSM = PAP ? Now you tell me.
That is why our MSM (not counting internet) is rated lowly, and despicably so, by most of us - notwithstanding that already rated by international bodies. Things in MSM are slowly getting little better (though at a snail pace) given the push by the internet but they still have a long way to go.
The difference between us and US is the many levels of independent counter-checking mechanisms that the latter has - some governmental institutions and many not. These freest channels and platforms are numerous and multiple - ultimately the people get to decide from this rich diet of views / counter-views - so rich that sometimes it will drown those coming from their own public officers.
@ Alan Wong , I agree with your post. The past and present events involving our government have clearly shown that the public have a compelling reason to question them. We are beginning to see what they are.
@ Solo Bear, It is VERY important to have free and fair elections. The redrawing of boundaries, introduction of GRC’s, persecution of political opponents are all in the incumbent’s favour. You may buy the reasons for such measures but I believe the majority do not. I agree that the vote is the most important element. But linking votes to upgrading of the estate is simply a underhand way of gaining advantage when you are controlling the public funds. A government that has performed and served the people and country well, need not ’stoop’ this low and set such a foolish precedent. Please bear with me for using the football game as an analogy for fair play. Brazil’s national football team WILL beat Singapore’s equivalent because they are that good. But don’t bet on it. Imagine the referee sending each Brazil player off every 30 seconds until they have about like 8 left on the field to keep the game going. And the linesmen also signalling for dubious offside infringements whenever they score, even with 8 men. Of course the match was played in Singapore !
The beauty of the MSM is, you can continue to post your views and allow all readers to see the various comments and lively exchange.
If you had not posted your views, I would not have the chance to see some brilliance at work. And I sincerely hope there will be more of it.
Syed,
ALL countries have skewed elections – without exception. That includes the US and all other western countries, which purportedly campaign Human Rights. So there is really nothing amiss, if you claim that in Singapore, elections are skewed.
So what if it is skewed? So what if it is “unfair” because of redrawing of boundaries?
Singaporeans still can put a cross on the opposition column on the voting slip. But 60+% didn’t! So why are you still barking, when 60+% out of their own free will, showed you the finger?
As for your idea that Singapore can be corrupt once LKY is gone, my reply is that you worship him too much. What makes you think he is the reason for the non-corruption in the first place? For that matter, what makes you think the government cannot be corrupt, even if he is in office? Stop worshipping the old man.
As for your point that we need Human Rights, I disagree. What makes you think Human Rights groups can help you?
They did not lift a finger to help the millions of Iraqis who lost their homes, families and lives the last 5 years to an oppressive US force. They did not lift a finger to help the millions of Palestinians who lost their homes, families and lives the last 50 years to an oppressive Israeli Force.
What makes you think they will help you? Human Rights is just a tool used by the big boys to advance their own political agenda. I made that point in the link I gave in the very first comment of this article.
Just like you worship LKY too much, you worship Human Rights groups too much. You see Human Rights as an end in itself – never mind that if it means you have to be beholden to foreign parties.
==========
Anonymous,
>>Given your knowledge, i am sure you can tell the difference. Is it fair to paint every human right activist as American apologists?
>>
It must be remembered that the MAIN proponent of Human Rights IS the US. It has been the US who sets the tone which country is up to par on Human Rights, and which is not. I am sure you are aware of that.
What wrong then is there, if one relates Human Rights as a tool, used by the west – US in particular – to advance its own agenda? I have made a comment in my blog that I see Human Rights groups as TOOLS used by the US in particular, to advance political agendas. Many activists are none the wiser they are being used as pawns by bigger fish.
As for the likes of Aung Sung Su Kyi, we can always lobby for her – with or without this Human Rights stuff, can’t we? Keeping someone in jail without trial itself is morally wrong. So what is there to stop the world to put pressure for Suu Kyi’s case – with or without the ideology of Human Rights?
My reservation about Human Rights groups is that there is no such thing as a free lunch. So you want to jump on the bandwagon? Then you have to support EVERYTHING Human Rights Groups fight for.
I take note that none of the pro-Human Rights groups members here answered my questions, if they would support the call to protest against China on the issue of Tibet. No reply too, on the point if they support the call for equal opportunities for immigrants, which will displace our citizens from their jobs. Why the silence on those issues?
My point is that if we want Human Rights groups to aid us, the price we pay is that we have to sell our own freedom, when they need support to protest against other nations in future.
God knows which nations that might be, depending on the whims of the US, who will then influence those Human Rights Groups, isn’t it?
I say we keep it clean. If we feel PAP is oppressive, just vote them out. Clean, neat, simple. No strings attached to foreign parties.
===
>>And your example of Algeria is flawed because certain FIS elements were definitely intent on establishing a Islamic theocracy through the ballot box.
>>
So what? That’s what the people of Algeria want, isn’t it? The people voted for FIS, and you tell are telling them they should vote for another party? Are you telling them HOW TO VOTE?
Hello?????
What you have demonstrated is the EXACT point Woon made. You have selectively decided what democracy should be and what it should not be.
So if the people align themselves to the west, in particular, US, it is OK. If they align themselves to another ideal other than the west, in this case Islamic rule, it is not.
Who are you to decide who they should vote? Are you not the EXACT description of Woon’s “selective” process?
====
>>This is clearly a misread of the Tiananmen incident. The students started the protest because they felt that the party hardliners had done the late party liberal reformer Hu Yaobang great injustice and wanted the party to revise the official view of him.
>>
The point is that when they sought US democracy, the world cried foul when they were mowed down. As for Algeria, when they sought for Islamic democracy and got mowed down, nothing was done.
That’s the selection process Woon was mentioning.
====
.>> I am definitely an opponent to US aggression in Iraq. In fact, if you do read the news, many activists have staged protests against US unilateral actions.
>>
So what if many activists staged protests? The US still sets the tone what Human Rights are. That’s the important point.
If US says China oppresses Tibetans, you see many influential Human Rights groups will pander to that. If you US considers torturing of Guantanamo Bay captives as legal, you see the many influential Human Rights groups also pandering to that.
This is the exact reference of “selection” Woon made.
====
>>However, no democracy can be 100% ideal,
>>
There you have it! So it isn’t democracy that is the point. It is “what kind of democracy”?
From the looks of it, if democracy is pro-west, Human Rights groups appear to endorse. If it not pro-west, the same groups do not endorse.
That is why you see people here blatantly and unashamedly dare to make statements like if Algeria wants Islamic democracy, it should not be allowed!
>>In case you do not know, China is formally a a multi-party state under the leadership of the Communist Party of China in the popular front model. ….but do you seriously consider the PRC a better “democracy” than say the United States
>>
You like the others seem fixated with “democracy”. Well, exactly what is “democracy”, when it is filled with inconsistencies? Like if you support US policies it is OK, but if it means you vote for Islamic regimes, it is not?
Why is “American democracy” more favoured than other forms of democracy?
Is this not what Woon referred to as “selection”?
====
>>But for MSM to take side ? Oh I forgot, can I say that MSM = PAP ? Now you tell me.
>>
Who is taking the side of MSM? And so what if MSM = PAP? In ANY country, MSM = the current ruling government!
So what is the big deal if MSM = PAP? Any different from any other country?
MSM or no MSM, you still can vote the PAP out, can’t you?
>>The difference between us and US is the many levels of independent counter-checking mechanisms that the latter has - some governmental institutions and many not.
>>
You are delusional. The end result is the same. For years, people in Singapore end up voting for PAP, while in America, they keep voting for Democrats/Republicans.
In both cases, NO OTHER parties could penetrate and displace them.
===
>> It is VERY important to have free and fair elections.
>>
That I agree. Have I once denied that?
>> The redrawing of boundaries, introduction of GRC’s, persecution of political opponents are all in the incumbent’s favour. You may buy the reasons for such measures but I believe the majority do not.
>>
Where have I bought the reasons for that? All I said that IN SPITE of all those, Singaporeans can still vote the PAP out, but they DID NOT.
For your info, there is NO true fair elections – EVER. Not even in the US or any other western country, who have been hypocritically promoting “free elections”.
ALL ELECTIONS, even in the US, are filled with dirty politicking and backstabbing, INCLUDING the use of MSM to block out news or exaggerate news.
I have last year commented how Ron Paul, an anti-war Presidential candidate was sidelined, yet pro-war candidates were promoted by MSM
Here is that link for you. http://wherebearsroamfree.blogspot.com/2007/11/last-hope-for-america-and-world-ron.html
So please realise that in ALL ELECTIONS, there is NO SUCH THING as “free elections”.
Pro-Human Rights groups should stop worshipping the US and West as the “ultimate free democratic” society.
Come to think of it, pro-Human Rights Groups should stop worhshipping the ideology of Human Rights too.
Like Woon said, Human Rights has become an obssession, a “must have” and a religion, such that if somone (like Solo Bear) does not agree, he becomes a heretic.
Woon made all these comments BEFORE citizens of the internet made those remarks here. Indeed, he has great foresight.
Dear Solo Bear,
If you want to surrender your Human Rights in favour of Authoritarianism - then thats your business.
But I will NOT surrender my rights. In fact I definitely insist on everyone to respect my Human Rights.
Speak for yourself Solo Bear.
I want my Human Rights !
@solobear
“It must be remembered that the MAIN proponent of Human Rights IS the US. It has been the US who sets the tone which country is up to par on Human Rights, and which is not. I am sure you are aware of that.
What wrong then is there, if one relates Human Rights as a tool, used by the west – US in particular – to advance its own agenda? I have made a comment in my blog that I see Human Rights groups as TOOLS used by the US in particular, to advance political agendas. Many activists are none the wiser they are being used as pawns by bigger fish. ”
Solobear, the US governmentdoesn’t have a monopoly over human rights. The rest of world recognises that. In fact, the US fell flat on its own face many times when the INTERNATIONAL notion of human rights and justice is pressed on Washington.
First, Washington refused to join the International Criminal Court. That ignited a schism between the ICC’s European supporters and the US.
Then the US was heavily criticised for not signing human rights treaties like International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and was humiliated publicly after being booted out of the UN Human Rights Commission for the first time since 1947 in 2001.
Many human rights activists groups continue to focus on the callous record of human rights displayed the US government. Recent UN Human Rights Council reports criticised the US for failing to comply with ICCPR and the Convention Against Torture in Guantanamo. Amnesty International and Human Rights First frequently focus on US human rights abuse in overseas detention facilities. In fact, the US media itself was instrumental in exposing the scandal at Abu Ghraib.
The above embarrassments of the US government highlighted that if human rights was indeed completely the nothing more than a tool of the US State Department, all that has been proven is that it was a tool that has battered the world image of the US by highlighting its recalcitrance, arrogance and isolation in matters of international justice, rights and fairness.
So if you insist that the US has a monopoly over human rights, i think that is a serious misunderstanding, if not bigoted view of what human rights really mean at the international level.
@solobear
“So what? That’s what the people of Algeria want, isn’t it? The people voted for FIS, and you tell are telling them they should vote for another party? Are you telling them HOW TO VOTE?
Hello?????
What you have demonstrated is the EXACT point Woon made. You have selectively decided what democracy should be and what it should not be.
So if the people align themselves to the west, in particular, US, it is OK. If they align themselves to another ideal other than the west, in this case Islamic rule, it is not.
Who are you to decide who they should vote? Are you not the EXACT description of Woon’s “selective” process?”
Of course i am not asking people how to vote, that’s not the way it should be. Sure, be it Islamist, communist, fascist, Neo-Nazi, anyone can participate in politics and be rightfully elected. In fact, the French Communist Party has been participating in the constitutional framework for as long as one can remember. Look at Nepal recently. Nobody expressed alarm when the Maoists came to power through genuine free and fair elections and even as they moved to abolish the Nepalese monarchy, no country or activists expressed deep concern. Why because the Maoist PM pledged that the Maoist Government would respect the democratic process and the constitutional framework of the country.
However, it seems that you have entirely brushed off the comments made by Ali Belhadj, the VP of FIS declared that “There is no democracy in Islam” and that “If people vote against the Law of God… this is nothing other than blasphemy. The ulama will order the death of the offenders who have substituted their authority for that of God” and that he is a die-hard sex segregationist by opposing the right to work for women.
So you would say that we are selective towards Belhadj? He has certainly no interest in keeping up the spirit of constitutionalism and he made it clear by his remarks that he would end the rights of people of those holding differing opinions from that of the FIS. If you are elected into office, that means you show that you are holding yourself accountable to the people and in any case that the people think you are incompetent, they can remove you through the same constitutional means. However, if one comes in elected to get power so that he could use abuse the levers of power given to him by the people to overthrow the popular sovereignty that brought him to power in the first place and strip the people such as women of their rights, it is not unreasonable to say that he is anti-democratic.
It is hard to fathom the logic of argument in this case. Suppose i stay in a condominium where i elect someone to be the chairman of the property management committee. Once elected, the chairman, using his discretionary powers, abolish the election process and sacked all other members who hold different views. Am i still being “selective” to call him an autocrat?
@solobear
“The point is that when they sought US democracy,”
What exactly do you mean by US democracy? I think the great thing about democracy is that it belongs to every human being with self-worth and dignity. Democracy tolerates dissent. Which system, other than democracy allows for “we agree to disagree”? I don’t buy the crap labels and doublespeaks like “US democracy” or “Asian model of democracy”, i see democracy for what it is. Democracy is not the cultural monopoly of any country. It belongs to all mankind.
The founder of modern China, Dr. Sun Yat-sen had this famous motto written as Chinese calligraphy, “All under heaven belongs to the people.” This shows that democracy is universal simply becauseit aspires to protect the rights of all for it encourages respect for diversity of views regardless of belief and background unless someone wants to grab power to end political pluralism.
Perhaps only Empress Dowager Cixi would concur with you that democracy is a tool of the “red hair barbarians”. After all, dynastic rule was the Chinese norm for 5000 years. I am sure you will agree with her that things like constitution, rights, equality, free press, republicanism, Habeas corpus etc are “weird gadgets invited by the yang-gwei-zi” which simply does not fit our culture.
@solobear
“So what if many activists staged protests? The US still sets the tone what Human Rights are. That’s the important point.
If US says China oppresses Tibetans, you see many influential Human Rights groups will pander to that. If you US considers torturing of Guantanamo Bay captives as legal, you see the many influential Human Rights groups also pandering to that.”
So you acknowledged that the rights activists have staged protests against US human rights abuse and unjust war in Iraq. But you have earlier on claimed that they were being used as the pawns of the US. A bit of inconsistency and self-contradiction here.
I don’t that rights activists express concern in Tibet just because the US says China oppresses Tibet. In fact, while rights groups such as Reporters Without Borders called for the Olympic boycott over Tibet, but Bush stated he will attend the Olympic Games while Rice had cautioned over politicizing the games and emphasized engagement with China over human rights. I don’t that the rights groups is doing any “pandering” here to the US government here over Tibet. In fact, it was the US which seems reluctant to upset China.
When did human rights endorse US torture in Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib as “legal”? Groups like Human Rights First has been zooming in on the abuse in Guantanamo while International Amnesty has been reporting on the scandal in Abu Ghraib. Perhaps you catch up abit more on what is happening around the round. Bigotry is the disease of ignorance.
@solobear
“Why is “American democracy” more favoured than other forms of democracy?”
Like i have said earlier, there is no such thing as “American democracy” or “Asian model of democracy”. Democracy is democracy. It is not the cultural preserve of any race or country. It is the common heritage of mankind because it respects human dignity and self-worth by promoting and protecting political pluralism. No matter whether you are a socialist, communist, conservative, you are entitled to your space and existence as long as you respect that space and existence of others who are different from you. That is why democratic states can tolerate everyone, except those who seek to destroy pluralism and deny the existence of others. That’s why the FIS in Algeria was trying to do: use salami tactics to gain power constitutionally. Once in power, tear up the constitution and allow only your opinion to exist and exterminate the existence of those who differ. The difference between democracy and other systems is that democracy allow the existence of dissidence no matter which political group is in power. The bottomline is that the political group in power shall never be allowed to deny the existence of others through dismantling the constitutional framework.
@solobear
“From the looks of it, if democracy is pro-west, Human Rights groups appear to endorse. If it not pro-west, the same groups do not endorse.”
For years, rights groups has been supporting figures like Aung San Suu Kyi and Nelson Mandela. So are you implying that Aung San Suu Kyi and Nelson Mandela are merely pro-west puppets?
@solobear
“As for the likes of Aung Sung Su Kyi, we can always lobby for her – with or without this Human Rights stuff, can’t we? Keeping someone in jail without trial itself is morally wrong. So what is there to stop the world to put pressure for Suu Kyi’s case – with or without the ideology of Human Rights?”
But what then do you mean by “keeping someone in jail without trial itself is morally wrong”? What is the basis for you to say that the Burma junta had acted in a morally wrong manner. Than Shwe would probably tell you that they detain her without trial because she is a “threat to national security” by “stirring chaos and instability” in the country. Therefore, for the “common good”, we have to keep her in custody. What then do you do? Keep telling Than Shwe that he is morally wrong? But on what basis?
That’s where the principle of habeas corpus comes in. It is morally repugnant to detain Ms Suu Kyi without trial indefinitely it violated the right of the individual to not to be arbitrarily detained by the state and the right to a fair trial.
@solobear
“In case you do not know, China is formally a a multi-party state under the leadership of the Communist Party of China in the popular front model. ….but do you seriously consider the PRC a better “democracy” than say the United States”
For some reasons, you have yet to enlighten us that the PRC, despite having more political parties participating in national state organs than democratic states like the US, failed to meet the mark of a “democracy”. Even from the Straits Times, i don’t recall the China correspondent, Ching Cheong, calling the PRC a democracy despite the country having more participating political parties in the NPC an the CPPCC. After all, the number of existing parties in a country was a benchmark which you have thrown out to criticize the quality of democracy in the US vis-a-vis states such as China. Can you expound on your theory of number of parties=quality of democracy?
@solobear
“My reservation about Human Rights groups is that there is no such thing as a free lunch. So you want to jump on the bandwagon? Then you have to support EVERYTHING Human Rights Groups fight for.”
“My point is that if we want Human Rights groups to aid us, the price we pay is that we have to sell our own freedom, when they need support to protest against other nations in future.”
After successfully dismantling Apartheid with the help of many around the world, i don’t see Nelson Mandela embarking on a global crusade in human rights like what Che Guevara did for communism. South Africa did not pressure Zimbabwe on human rights even though Zimbabwe had provided sanctuary and aid for the African National Congress in its fight against Apartheid in the 1980s. After Kim Dae Jung became president of South Korea, he also did not embark on global human rights missionary work. Instead, he extended the olive branch to the totalitarian Stalinist North Korea under his Sunshine policy. Obviously, he did not attempt to convert Kim Jong Il to human rights. To go back to historical times, the Bourbon Dynasty of France had supported the Americans in its War of Independence in 1776. Yet when the French Revolutionary Wars occurred, the Americans never lend a hand to the French revolutionaries and even cautioned themselves against getting themselves into “entangling alliances in the old quarrels of Europe”.
Using world affairs as a gauge, i really don’t see any historical and empirical evidence to justify your alarmist notions of “selling our own freedom”, “free lunch” and “jumping into the bandwagon”. It looks more like scare-mongering without some sort of evidence or proof.
@solobear
And by the way, since you don’t buy human rights, that means that you also don’t buy the right to privacy and confidentiality for an individual because it is also part of human rights. Which means that anyone can do the following you:
1) Look at all your medical records without your consent
2) Copy as many copies of your medical records and distribute it willfully
3) Anyone can look at your academic records without your permission
4) Anyone without your consent is not committing any wrong in leaking out your employment history
5) You cannot sue anyone for illegal confinement because you don’t recognise/buy the right to freedom of movement.
If you don’t think human rights is necessary, then are you prepared to allow others to do the above things to you?
@solobear
“Like if you support US policies it is OK, but if it means you vote for Islamic regimes, it is not?”
Support human rights and democracy does not translate one into a US stooge. Otherwise Mandela and Kim Dae Jung would have been stooges too. Like i say, you can vote anyone into power, even the Maoists in the case of Nepal if you promise to respect political pluralism, the existing constitutional framework and not deny the space and existence of other who does not agree with you.
After all, i don’t see any problem with the overwhelming support that PAS received in Malaysia in the recent elections from non-Muslim constituents after they entered into a coalition with the multiracial DAP and the moderate PKR. The PAS won them over because they promised not impose hudud on non-muslims and even fielded non-muslim candidates. As long as one stick to the constitutional route, nothing is not tolerated.
@ Solo Bear. Thanks for letting me know where you stand on free and fair elections and the other points raised. I used the football game as illustration to show that a victory can be engineered, similar to an election. The ruling party’s political victory is just a hollow victory, even if the results show that 60% of the people voted for them.
I agree that there is no true fair elections.
But the biggest disapointment is our “men in whites” portraying themselves as men of unquestionable integrity.
I hold them to a higher standard than those in the US, UK, Japan ,etc. , for many valid reasons.
@solobear
“The point is that when they sought US democracy, the world cried foul when they were mowed down.”
So am i right to assume that you share the official view of the Chinese Communist Party of the Tiananmen Square incident in that “it was a political incident instigated by counterrevolutionaries and bourgeois liberals who received instructions and sponsorship from foreign powers trying to interfere with the domestic affairs of the People’s Republic of China?” In other words, do you share this view held by CCP hardliners such as Li Peng since you claimed that the students “sought US democracy”? In other words, this mean that you concur that there is foreign elements involved in the incident and so the massacre is therefore justified on those grounds? Mind you, words like “sought US democracy” is equivalent to describing high treason in the Marxist-Leninst terminology of the Chinese Communist Party.
“MSM or no MSM, you still can vote the PAP out, can’t you?”
Is it? So easy when internet was not around? When the national psyche has been delibrately moulded (conditioning) to hear one side of the picture by the sole source of national information (or disinformation)? Mind you, this came from you “So what if the entire MSM and machinery favours the PAP?”
And, why are you around here in the internet domain, surely not here to provide some independent views.
Talking about voting PAP out, well if it is the people’s will in the near / far future, so be it.
“You are delusional. The end result is the same. For years, people in Singapore end up voting for PAP, while in America, they keep voting for Democrats/Republicans.”
Am I delusional and are you? How can it be the same. In the latter, two parties are delibrately being put on competition for power and the share of benefits in managing national resources which do get circulated once in while between the two parties - with the independents delibrately playing the moderating card.
Here, out of three terms of presidency tenure, two went without any election. And they call it elected presidency somemore. If you cannot respect your own citizens with the use of their own intelligence, do not expect the citizens to respect you either.
If it is the same, any decent Singaporean would have detected it easily.
“In both cases, NO OTHER parties could penetrate and displace them.”
Maybe not now and may not be in my lifetime. Things change because that is force of nature that no humans can conquer that. Nothing is cast in stone. Parties are just in names only and the composition of people inside it keep on changing and may even move and shift.
@solobear
“Where have I bought the reasons for that? All I said that IN SPITE of all those, Singaporeans can still vote the PAP out, but they DID NOT.”
I think LKY’s quote may offer some light to your burning question:
“Without the elected president and if there is a freak result, within two or three years, the army would have to come in and stop it.”
What I dont like about solo bear is that his basic point seems to be:
“Human Rights is an American thing. Let’s run away from it as fast as possible. ”
Now personally I don’t care if Human Rights have chinese, Indian of European origins.
What we need to ask ourselves is, “Will our society be better, freer, more equitable, more just, if we decide to implement this, oh so controversial, yankee philosophy.
I would say yes!
Solo Bear says:
So what if the entire MSM and machinery favours the PAP? That even happens in the US – the very land where Human Rights supposedly originates.
Keith Olbermann says:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fGYW0Wi5Jvs
@solobear
“That even happens in the US – the very land where Human Rights supposedly originates.”
In your anxious and desperate labeling of human rights as nothing more than a malicious tool created by the US, it pays to flip some basic history textbooks to get certain facts right. It doesn’t take much reading to realize that notions of “inalienable” and “natural” rights traces their origins and roots way back to ancient civilizations and then followed by events like Magna Carta. Rights philosophy reached a height during the Enlightenment under the various philosophes such as John Locke.
And guess what? The US did not even exist back then.
@solobear
“There you have it! So it isn’t democracy that is the point. It is “what kind of democracy”?”
At this rate, we will have t