Human Rights activists – a bunch of ‘fanatics’?
Thursday, 12 June 2008, 3:47 pm | 285 views
The following are extracts of Attorney General Walter Woon’s speech at a Law Society gathering last Thursday where he touched on the topic of human rights. The event was to mark the launch of the Law Society’s Public and International Law Committee.
The extracts are culled from reports by the Straits Times and TODAY.
Human rights has become a ‘religion’ that breeds devotees who border on the fanatic.
—–
It would be ‘hypocrisy’ for such people to decide what is acceptable for the rest of society.
—–
We have to be careful when we talk about public law, and not to confuse law with politics. There are many people who think if a decision is made and they don’t like it, then this is something the law can correct. There is a line between a political decision and a legal decision.
—–
You have, like in some religions, the fanatics. And it’s all hypocrisy and fanaticism (for these people) to set the views, as the leading spokesmen, of what is acceptable and what’s not.
—–
What we are against is the assumption of some people that when they define what’s human rights, that decision is the decision of the rest of humanity.
—–
Below are the letters from Maruah (Singapore Working Committee for an ASEAN Human Rights Mechanism), AWARE (Association of Women for Action and Research) and the subsequent replies from Attorney General Walter Woon.
Maruah (Siew Kun Hong) – Keep Our Door Open To Ideas
AWARE (Constance Singam) – Human-Rights ‘Fanatics’ Is What Singapore Needs.
Walter Woon (reply to Maruah) – No One Solution.
Walter Woon (reply to AWARE) – Human Rights Key To Good Governance But…
Read the exchanges and share your views on the issues.
————-
Email this article to a Friend
Bookmark this
Irrelevant ! What matters are your own values….Which is more important ? Human Rights or Economic Growth ?
And are you prepared to face discomfort in order to uphold the ideals of Human Rights ?
It appears that Walter Woon is just another one of those chameleons.
Saying is one thing. But t the problem seems to be that our Gahmen
does not practise what they preach. Just look at what our Ministers
had said in the past and compare that with what they have been doing.
What transparency.
What integrity.
What opening up of society.
What human rights.
All are just hypocrites.
Dear People,
Ask yourself whether Singaporeans are prepared to make sacrifices and face discomfort – just to uphold the ideals of Human Rights ?
I do not think so. They are too materialistic for that. They prefer to remain in their comfort zone rather than face discomfort in struggling for Human Rights.
Its a question of our value system. Do we Singaporeans value Human Rights more than Economic Growth – as does the present Government ?
Is money the be-all and the end-all to life ? I guess Religion has a role to play here. Especially when it comes to values etc.
How many of you can honestly say that you are prepared to make sacrifices just to uphold Human Rights ?
Maybe we are all just Economic Animals ! But are we ? And where do we draw the line between Human Rights, Ethics, Religion, Values etc versus the comforts of Economic Materialism ?
How to balance between Science and Religion ? Between Values and Money ? Between Justice and Pragmatism ?
Perhaps they should make Philosophy a compulsory subject at the A Levels !!
Dear People,
Ooops ! Typo in the last posting :
“Do we Singaporeans value Human Rights more than Economic Growth – as does the present Government ?”
Should read as :
Do we Singaporeans value Human Rights more than Economic Growth – as the present Government seems to value Economic Growth much more than Human Rights ??
Thats how it should read !!
By the way, how many Singaporeans are prepared to join the SDP and CSJ in their “crusade” for Human Rights and Liberal Democracy by civil disobedience ??
Or are Singaporeans unwilling to leave their comfort zone ?? Think about it…
As far as I am concerned – CSJ has been talking of Human Rights for a long time now without much success precisely because most Singaporeans are not prepared to leave their comfort zone !!
I find all the remarks made thus far about human rights confusing. I’m quite sure everything has been nicely spelt out already, including ‘rights’ to such things as free speech and assembly, so I’m only concerned when these rights are taken away from those who’ve abided by legal or administrative requirements. Persons who don’t get a permit to speak in public or to lead demonstrations ought to be detained and persons who defame can’t blame anyone if they face suits. If anything I’ve got one or two gripes to what is referred the ‘right to life’. I’m no drug abuser, pusher or trafficker myself, and I don’t approve of such persons, but what I cannot understand is the death sentence for drug trafficking. It is an extremely serious thing to put a man to death on the basis of having trafficked in substances which are not for the purposes of, say, sedition and acts of terror against the state. Couldn’t there have been a better way to prevent drug trafficking, and should the punishment really be so harsh as to take away a man’s right to life?
Let me add to that. That’s not to say persons like myself are not concerned about drug abuse, and I’m glad the enforcement authorities crack down on drug abuse and trafficking. But there should be the relevant punishment for drug traffickers. You can put a trafficker in jail, do years of rehabilitation and work while serving his sentence, as a way of giving back what lives he tried to wreck for profit– returning a social ‘good’ for ‘ill’. But you cannot give him the death sentence. And that’s all I have to say.
Dr SA.
Yea, yea. Many Singaporeans, if not majority of them are mainly concerned about materialism – their shopping, their pay packets, their homes, their cars, their enjoyment, religiously Q-ing up for free this free that etc just to name some among countless which mostly are centred around the ‘BIG SELF’.
Of course, its not that in themselves, concerns of these are wrong per se or invalid, but its a concern almost exclusive of other things like intrinsic values of human rights, transparency, governmemnt accountability, fellow mankind sufferings in Sudan, Burma, Nigeria etc.
Yea, there are some other concerns – like cat welfare I can think of, what, that Che Jawa thing.
We are what we are today because of social conditioning, engineered by whites (the wearers of white).
Ask the youth do they want to protest or do they want their suhi, sashimi, boybands CDs, clothes?
Dear People,
Its actually very scary. If Singaporeans are NOT willing to leave their comfort zones for such noble – though abstract – causes like Human Rights, then what makes you think that Singaporeans will stand up for Singapore when the time for it comes ?
After all – if you value Economic Materialism over the finer things in life – then what does that say about stuff like Patriotism ?
Conclusion – Economic Materialism is NOT an option in the LONG RUN. It may be a temporary phenomena but it eventually corrupts the populace. At the end of the day – Truth, Justice and Freedom will always triumph !
But perhaps not in our lifetime ! Too bad…………….
How come Walter Woon’s two replies to Aware and Maruah are just copy and paste of each other?
I surmise I didn’t attend his speech.
A tempest in teacup.
Would anyone here claim that within any ideology whether its Foucalts or Satre or Russell or even the French Revolution or Russian revolutions that there were no fanatics/extremists who dogmatically insist that only their version is correct.
Human rights is critical important but they are relational to a community for the aspects which does not touch life or limb or sustenance.
Further, having seen and heard some of the so called champions, I am still unsure if they will turn out to be Alcibiades or the Pericles of the individual dogmas.
So pray tell where has the comments gone wrong by the AG,
the claims/comments here eerily echo the lockstep where no individual/instituitional dissent is allowed for the definitions and not the concept.
Regards
I’m gonna stick my neck out and say that I agree with Walter Woon.
The reason is very simple. He doesn’t specify who. Is it so unbelievable that some people will regard human rights to the point of being a religion?
Yet all I read is how Walter Woon is anti-human rights… and followed by the usual insults.
There is a saying that when people don’t do embarrassing things, then nothing to be embarrassed about.
If one doesn’t treat human rights as a religion then why get so concerned or worked up over what Mr Woon says?
Whether a person treats human rights as a religion even to the extent of being a fanatic is a question of fact. I support human rights but don’t treat it as a religion. So I don’t feel threatened by what Mr Woon says.
Does anyone here treat it as a religion to the point of fanaticism?
Now for the flames and insults….
@lim
I support human rights but don’t treat it as a religion.
May i humbly ask you to elaborate on what do you understand by treating human rights as a religion?
As we champion to sign the ASEAN Human Rights Charter, that begs the question: Southeast Asia is so diverse in culture and social norms. Going by the cultural relativist argument, it can be argued the ASEAN Human Rights Charter can potentially be an example of human rights becoming a fanatical religion. Because after all, who in ASEAN has the sole right and prerogative to decide what defines human rights?
I find Mr Woon’s comments rather illogical. He argues that some human rights advocates are akin to religious “fanatics” because they attempt to set the views of what is acceptable and what is not, and then try to impose this view onto the rest of society.
But isn’t that what virtually anyone with strongly-held views does? Social conservatives who think that gay sex is immoral aggressively impose their moral views onto everyone else, and the Government lets them. Many religious people (even “moderates”) go about proselytising and telling people that they would go to Hell if they don’t believe in a particular version of God. The Government decides that casinos will do the country good, and they go ahead with it even though many Singaporeans (perhaps even a majority) disagree.
In fact, I would argue that human rights advocates aren’t “deciding” anything for the rest of society, because they are actually campaigning for greater liberty for people to do and say what they want as free human beings. They aren’t dictating what people should or should not do. The true culprits who are guilty of imposing their views onto the rest of society are those who advocate for a constriction of freedom – the people who try to outlaw speech and acts they don’t like; the people who would force others to fulfil certain “obligations”.
I don’t think his comments are illogical at all. The extracts of his speech posted here are “culled” from newspaper reports in the papers. Perhaps you should read his comments in context. And what’s wrong with outlawing speech and acts that aren’t likeable, especially if these involve going against the law?
Dear People,
Of course there are contradictions between some cultural and religious practices on one hand, and the Human Rights on the other. Islamic Law for example – is a minefield of such cases.
In such instances, there must be utmost care so that the situation does not get out of hand.
In this context – sure – we cannot be fanatical about any fixed point of view but must instead be open to possible solutions.
Oooops !! Forgot to provide reference !
If you wish to find out more on the contradictions between Islamic Law and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, please visit the following web-site
http://www.iheu.org/
It belongs to the International Humanist and Ethical Union. They discuss these sort of issues in many of their publications, resolutions, articles etc etc.
I think the issue here should be fleshed out in a little more detail than just a blanket understanding of how economic growth and human rights are diametrically opposed. Indeed, in many cases, they are diametrically opposed. Please also keep in mind one thing of fundamental importance: human rights cannot, and should never ever be seen as a end in itself.
If human rights do infringe on certain liberties or luxuries, why should we go out of the way to change them without a) having a proper conception of how they will work out in our society and b) when the very purpose of human rights are to ensure that we are free and can have a life that is materially well off. It is one thing to say that freedom of expression is a fundamental right, but in a clash of rights we must give credence to the people’s beliefs and values.
If they tend to value economic rights in exchange for that freedom of expression (which must be taken within its specific contexts: in Singapore how restrained are we really to express views?) This is not a pro-government stand but something to show us that what Professor Woon says is not as crazy as it sounds. Human rights is an instrument and not an end in itself. Please observe carefully how it is used as it can be manipulated to be a powerful political tool. Certain policies of the United States and the EU, strong proponents of human rights are tailor made that way.
Construing rights in such a damaging way does not give credence nor impetus for the government or even the state to give leeway in this direction. We understand that certain rights must be upheld, but let us negotiate them within our socio-economic realities.
Blaming the Singapore public will not change anything, for human rights if anything should be serving them, and not the people who seem to proclaim it but abuse or misconstrue it. If anything, rights to survival, rights to political expression and rights to a fair trial are rights that Singapore falls short of, but there needs to a careful examination of how they can be applicable. It is up to us to find that application and educate others.
Dr Syed Alwi,
I’m sorry but your other two comments will not be allowed to be posted. They are cut and pasted from a website and it runs into more than a thousand words. You can summarise it and post your own comments, however.
Cutting and posting articles which are thousands of words long are not allowed here. Alternatively, you can provide a hyperlink to them.
Dear theonlinecitizen,
no problem at all
Dag said: I find Mr Woon’s comments rather illogical. He argues that some human rights advocates are akin to religious “fanatics” because they attempt to set the views of what is acceptable and what is not, and then try to impose this view onto the rest of society.
I did not read anything stated by Mr Woon that defines what he regards as a fanatic. What he does do is state that fanatics should not determine what is human rights in Singapore. Sounds right to me.
If one is not a fanatic, then there is no reason why that person can’t determine what is human rights in Singapore. Since the determinants of rights in this case are Singaporeans, then it is up to Singaporeans to determine who is a fanatic or not.
What he also did is caution Singaporeans against those who would use human rights to further their political agendas. I think that is a political minefield. I don’t think any politician, even PAP, can de-couple human rights from their political beliefs. If a politicians wishes to improve the lives of Singaporeans through improving their fundamental rights to protection against criminals (public safety), their right to the practice of their religion (eg building of churches, temples, mosques), etc then I see no reason why that person can’t use that agenda. I think the PAP can even argue that this is partly the reason why they are successful in the polls.
What I do think, and what I think Mr Woon insinuates, is the intention. For me, the ultimate intention must be to improve the lives of Singaporeans.
If human rights activist can’t get traction or support from ordinary Singaporeans, I don’t think that disbars their activities IF their intention is ultimately for, whether rightly or wrongly, Singaporean benefit (even if ultimately the activities are eventually ineffective in helping Singaporeans). There is a saying that it is the thought that counts.
However, it is never easy to look into any man’s heart and determine if a person is indeed sincere about helping Singaporeans or in there for their other less altruistic reasons.
The simple message: Singaporeans need to know why a person is an activist for human rights…
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 !
Can I say that people in positions of power who like to label others as fanatics
are themselves also a bunch of fanatics too? That could be a form of fanaticism
due to their excessive and self-uncritical zeal in wanting to protect their own
position and maintain their power under, the guise of “for the common good”,
or “in the national interests”, or “for the good of the people”.
Moreover, the word “fanatics” could have been embedded in their mind first and
thereafter arose in the thought process, and then manifested through an urge to
speak out to cast a slur upon other fellow human beings, is it not?
Are we all not “fanatics” in one way or another sometimes, somewhere, and
at some events or occasions?
For example:
1. Aren’t those who keep acquiring one title/degree after another fanatics in some
sense too?
2. Aren’t those politicians, public and civil servants who keep clamouring for
higher and higher pay, when they are already the world’s highest paid, fanatics
in some sense too?
3. Aren’t those who are always trying to discover the unknown and attempt to
break one world record after another record fanatics in some sense too?
4. Aren’t those who keep boasting about being “First” in this and that fanatics
in some sense too?
5. Aren’t those who want to attain economic growth at all costs fanatics in
some sense too?
6. Aren’t those who blatantly show no respect for others’ feelings by labeling
fellow human beings with hurtful name-callings fanatics in their own right too?
7. Aren’t those civil servants who have “intense uncritical devotion” to their
political masters fanatics in some sense too?
At one time, the Earth was supposed to be flat. The one who started to claim
that the Earth was round was considered a fanatic and mad. That was the
tyranny of the majority over the minority. But today, it seems to be the other
way round. The tyranny of the minority is imposing their rights over the rights
of the majority because only a representative tiny group of the majority dare to
speak out and protest against ruthless, inhumane and unfeeling practices
that have quietly and silently crept into our society over time .
The fact is that lawyers are trained to argue any issue/case from both sides.
That means if they chose to claim that “white is black”, their arguments will
convincingly demonstrate that “white is black” Likewise, they can also
convincingly show that “black is white” too. Therefore, it is for the judge to
ascertain the truth of the whole issue/case. And in this instant, who shall be
the judge in the court of public opinions?’ The lob-sided 154th old media
or the wide variety of voices from the new media?
We are all fellow human beings, is it not? And we all have feelings, is it not?
So, shall a pot call a kettle black? You be the Judge!
From: Kettles-and-Pots. 14-06-2008.
——————————————————————————————–
Definitions:
Fanatic: marked by excessive enthusiasm and often intense uncritical devotion.
Fanaticism: an emotion of being filled with excessive, uncritical zeal, particularly for an extreme religious or political cause, or with an obsessive enthusiasm for a pastime or hobby.
Hello all,
His Eminence does not believe that there are such things as “universal human rights”, to see why, visit this blogpost.
http://conservativesingaporeans.wordpress.com/2008/05/08/no-there-is-no-such-things-as-human-rights/
[...] human rights? Wouldn’t this make Amit an activist then? An group of activists that has been denounced by our own Attorney-General, Mr Walter Woon, as being [...]