We have spent more than enough years hearing about our obligations as citizens without a corresponding discourse on our rights.
I came late to activism, and later to human rights activism. Although I’ve always firmly believed in the importance of human rights, I never really delved into the subject, other than some scratching of the surface during my law school days. Like so many other Singaporeans, I took subjects that were more “practical” and “relevant” to my future professional career.
Serves me right then for the steep learning curve I am now experiencing, just when time is at a greater premium than at any other point in my life, because I now understand that human rights are at least as practical and relevant to my life as a whole as anything else out there.
The most profound realisation that has struck me since I started taking baby tip-toes into the sea of human rights activism is how human rights permeate so many aspects of life. Many, if not most, Singaporeans mistakenly associate the term with the lofty ideals of civil and political rights, such as the rights to freedom of expression and freedom of assembly.
But it is a mistake to limit one’s conception of human rights in such a manner. They might be the most headline-grabbing, but they fail to do justice to just how many aspects of daily life human rights are concerned with.
After all, human rights include social, cultural and economic rights as well. For example, Article 25(1) of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights provides that
Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.
Agreement to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is a pre-condition to membership in the United Nations. Singapore as a UN member-state therefore has the obligation to comply with Article 25. I think we fall at least a little bit short, especially on the second part of the article.
Here are two other examples of how seemingly mundane matters that were recently in the news in Singapore can be re-cast as human rights issues when analysed through the prism of human rights.
Firstly, the 1June edition of the Sunday Times carried a story about how children were not having meaningful school holidays at all, what with tuition and enrichment classes galore. Well, Article 31 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC), which Singapore has acceded to, provides:
1. States Parties recognize the right of the child to rest and leisure, to engage in play and recreational activities appropriate to the age of the child and to participate freely in cultural life and the arts.
2. States Parties shall respect and promote the right of the child to participate fully in cultural and artistic life and shall encourage the provision of appropriate and equal opportunities for cultural, artistic, recreational and leisure activity.
I certainly agree that parents acting in the best interest of the child and with due respect for the views of the child should be entitled to decide whether the child should go for an endless stream of classes during their precious school holidays.
However, I think it is valid for us to question the role of the state, and specifically the education system, in facilitating, encouraging and perpetuating such a state of affairs, and whether the state should institute changes for better compliance with its obligations under the CRC.
Secondly, we do not require foreign domestic workers (FDWs) to be given a mandatory day off (whether weekly, monthly, or even at all). Article 7 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (which Singapore has not signed) provides for
the right of everyone to the enjoyment of just and favourable conditions of work which ensure, in particular … (d) Rest, leisure and reasonable limitation of working hours and periodic holidays with pay, as well as remuneration for public holidays.
Article 25 of the International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families, which Singapore (and to be fair, most other receiving countries) has not signed, provides:
“1. Migrant workers shall enjoy treatment not less favourable than that which applies to nationals of the State of employment in respect of remuneration and:
a. Other conditions of work, that is to say, overtime, hours of work, weekly rest, holidays with pay, safety, health, termination of the employment relationship and any other conditions of work which, according to national law and practice, are covered by this term; …
2. It shall not be lawful to derogate in private contracts of employment from the principle of equality of treatment referred to in paragraph 1 of the present article. …”
Meanwhile, Singapore has acceded to the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW), but ironically with a reservation that withholds the labour rights under the Employment Act from FDWs. So much for elimination of discrimination.
What I have sought to do in these examples is to illustrate that many issues not commonly associated with human rights can and do have a human rights element. What is lacking in Singapore is the knowledge, awareness, willingness and desire to analyse issues from a rights-based perspective.
Yes, there are many who do not know better. But there are many who do know better, but dare not articulate a rights-based discourse for fear of a negative reaction from officialdom. As a result, they tip-toe around the human rights elephant in the middle of the room.
I think we have spent more than enough years hearing about our obligations as citizens without a corresponding discourse on our rights. The emergence of a rights-based discourse in Singapore is long overdue. There are many different ways in which one can work towards this. I am hopeful that, in my own small way, I am part of this effort.
About the author:
The writer is a Nominated Member of Parliament and corporate counsel. He is a firm believer in the importance of human rights, despite being non-religious and more frequently accused of being overly-moderate than fanatical. Since late last year, he has been part of MARUAH Singapore (www.maruah.org), a human-rights group that seeks to facilitate and inform the establishment of the ASEAN human rights mechanism from a Singapore perspective.
Kum Hong also has a personal blog here.
TOC thanks Kum Hong for taking the time to pen this for us.
—————-
What are Human Rights, Natural Rights, Religious Rights and any other Rights including Divine Rights?
Ah, the last one, the Divine Rights is always claimed and exercised by the Emperors, Kings and Rulers in Imperialistic, Authoritarian, Capitalist and the Dog eat Dog World. When the Divine Rights of these(those) Rulers overruled all the other Rights, the Latters will never see justice done.
What is the use of Rights, any Rights, when these Rights can be nullified and voided by those in powers who claimed Divine Rights and abused both the Rights of others as well as the Divine Rights they bestowed upon themselves?
Mr Siew, please do not be too hard on yourself, your kindness and feelings will always be appreciated. But, the truth is, throughout the history of mankind, the Rights of the Superiors is the only Rights that is always and invariably practised.
Me knows little or nothing about Laws and Rights like many others(not certified), but as humans, we all do know justice. There is a Chinese Saying ‘Kongdao zhi zai renxin’ meaning ‘justice is naturally in everybody’ or everybody will feel for justice. Let us fight on for justice sake!
patriot.
YES for too long the Lee Kuan Yew Regime has demanded too much from Singaporeanson while while slowly and quietly eroding our rights over the years. Singaporeans must now demand that the Lee Kuan Yew Regime restored those
rights to us. The only way they can do that is to put pressure on the Lee Kuan Yew Regime. The Regime will only response to those pressures if they have a little more than 50% support from the people. So the starting point is to reduce support to the Lee Kuan Yew Regime
Mr Kum, time and tide waits for no man. But still its never too late to be aware of the various forms of ‘rights’.
Me too, my sight have only been recently restored to see this ‘rights’ subject.
But I do know what is my entitlement or what are my entitlements, what are my ‘rights’ are what are others’ rights.
Collectively, every drop makes an ocean, to close in support of you.
Kum Hong,
Thank you for this eloquent piece. You have more or less nailed the root of the issues. How many of us (including commoners like me) truly understand or know our basic rights? You are absolutely right to assume that: “Singaporeans mistakenly associate the term with the lofty ideals of civil and political rights, such as the rights to freedom of expression and freedom of assembly.”
Until majority if not every Singaporean are aware of their common rights and exercise their “civic duties” when call for, it’s a long road to battle for the change we hope and wished for. Just off from reading our Constitutions online, quotes taken from Asean Bar Association: “Acts of Parliament start as Bills which are introduced in Parliament. Every Bill has to be read three times in Parliament. Parliament also has to debate them. At the third reading, Parliament will vote whether to pass the Bill. Majority vote decides.”
It is not too late though given the reference information such as Asean Bar Association (http://www.aseanlawassociation.org/legal-sing.html ), and the Singapore Statues (http://statutes.agc.gov.sg/ ) and so on are widely available online.
What is really needed as a good start (if I may suggest) is; within Singapore legal frame work (i.e. we do not want to be accused of inciting a revolt) for the kind professional/s volunteering to disseminate the massive amount of law jargons into layman term to enable the online commoners (ordinary citizens who are not trained in law profession) to understand our basic rights and spread the words to those who are less privilege or those who do have no access to the internet.
This fundamental step may seem mind-numbing but it is essential as a basic building block if we are to improve awareness of the common Singaporean. If we constantly are counting and waiting for the government to disseminate such information, then we are will never shed that “sheep” skin so to speak (no intention of pun).
Constant bickering and winding with no constructive proposition or action is not going to help change the situation. In reality, unity and sensible exchange is called for amongst voting citizens who are ready for change. We really need to ask ourselves in an unreserved manner and response candidly, “Are we ready?”, “Are we able to trade off that comfort zone in exchange for a little more human rights freedom?”
By that, I mean, you have to stand counted when a worthy election contestant is in sight with issues for improvement that are of substance. You may not get it in one go, but it’s a gradual process. However, if there is not even a beginning, there will never be any forseeable change in the near future.
Thanks, Kum Hong, for verbalising what I have been trying to.
The only “rights” we are made aware of are basically the rights to work and be a ‘responsible’ member of society (community above self and all that).
In S’pore, ‘rights’ are very narrowly defined. Ministers have said that ‘rights to a job, to a roof over our heads, to safety, etc’ are the ‘real’ rights we should have. While that is not untrue, perhaps it is time to move on to other rights – and in my opinion, political rights should be at the top of the agenda.
But sadly, the govt has purposefully ignored promoting political rights. (Isn’t it strange that even the so-called right to vote isn’t a right enshrined in our constitution?)
I think the best place to start is in the schools. Yes, we need to re-politicise our young – and start with discussions and debates on our constitution and what is inside there.
If we do not, we will continue to hear our PM lament that he is having a hard time looking for political leaders and the next prime minister. And this spells trouble for the entire nation.
So, I’d urge that student leaders themselves push for discussion and debate about the Constitution be included in the syllabus of schools.
Just my two cents.
Thanks Mr Siew. I enjoyed your article.
Just the other day I was discussing with another friend about how Asian fathers differ from Australian fathers. It dawned on me that the way how SG government works is very very similar to how the role of Asian fathers play.
Asian fathers’ role: My job is to provide for the family, to have a roof over my family’s head, to implement house rules such that kids don’t go way-ward, to make practical decisions, my word is final and authoratative – no questions, no buts, your right is to be a son and listen to the wise words of your father, kids are to be seen not heard, etc.
Well, from my observation, Australian dads tend to play a role of being a leader for their kids, instead of saying do this-do that, they say let’s do it together, say words like what do you think?, etc.
Of course, I’m not saying all Aussie dads are angels, neither am I implying that Asian fathers are similar a s mentioned above.
But we know deep inside there is truth. And both my friend and I burst out laughing about the similarities with the current incumbent party and our fathers. Doesn’t it sound like the same dose of governance I’m having back in Singapore?
I never knew what human rights was until I started alternative reading articles (and now that include yours).
Thank you,
Kaffein
I think Kum Hong misses the point on human rights for Singaporeans. The focus on citizen obligation is clearly the only relevant and entire debate.
Technically, there are no individual rights in Singapore that are not predicated upon Parliament’s or the Court’s will.
Sections 9 to 16 of the constitution which refer to fundamental liberties of a person in Singapore all have either a “subject to”, “but”, “except”, “save” and “without prejudice to” clause in them.
Our basic rights are in law provided and limited by Parliament or in some cases, the Courts. Nothing further. Hence it is a question of how far Parliament or the Courts deign that people can live rather than what we are entitled to enjoy.
Unlike the US bill of rights which was to limit the powers of Government, the English bill of rights of 1689 (arising from the magna carta) represents Parliament’s rights vs the Crown and thus define the rights of citizens (represented by Parliament which is the Government). This subtle difference recognises the difference between US styled human rights vs Singapore-styled human rights.
I actually do not see any limits on the legislative powers of Singapore’s Parliament and as far as I understand, there are none.
Mr Siew,
You are right about most Singaporeans’ knowledge about our rights and human rights. You are right that one main reason is that those who knows about these rights has chosen as their right to remain silent/private about such rights, instead of making the effort to disseminate their knowledge about these rights to their fellow Singaporeans.
Be that as it may, it is never too late for professionals like you, well versed in the law, to provide the impetus to such a movement – a movement to inform and educate the rest of Singapore about their rights so that they will not fall prey to anyone, govt included, because of a lack of such knowledge. It would be a watershed in govt-people relationship when each side is fully aware of such rights in their sparring.
I have never believed for one moment that the govt will act as a caring parent when party self-interest is at stake. MM Lee has ALWAYS rule Singapore with both eyes fixed on advantage to his party, period. The only difference is that the scales are beginning to fall from the eyes of Singaporeans. We see better, we know better now, and the sight is not pretty.
Dear Mr Siew,
Your views are obviously wrong. Your greatest error consists in treating the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) as a proper basis of rights for Singapore.
Have you not heard what the Honourable Attorney-General Walter Woon said? The Singapore officialdom is not against human rights. It is merely against “the assumption of some people that when they define what’s human rights, that decision is the decision of the rest of humanity”.
The propounders of the UDHR are the most flagrant examples of the human rights fanatics mentioned by the Wise Mr Woon. They have the audacity to unilaterally deem certain rights as “universal”. They have the temerity to presume that all humans are equal regardless of where they live, and are thus deserving of equal rights.
They are wrong, as pointed out by the Enlightened Mr Woon: Civil liberties must be seen in “the context of our society”. That means, any charter of rights that purports to be “universal” is irredeemably flawed, since it fails to take into account divergent local conditions.
The Omniscient Mr Woon also disapproves of advocates who use the language of human rights to frame and pursue their causes – which is exactly what you are doing here. An adequate standard of living is not a human right. Sufficient rest is not a human right. In Singapore, no one is entitled to a living. Welfare is a dirty word.
So stop trying to pursue your cause under the guise of “human rights”. Cease and desist from advocating a “rights-based discourse”. By doing so, you might be arrested for disrupting religious harmony, for you are turning human rights into a “religion” and fanning the flames of fanaticism.
tks leting us know our right.
It’s a wonder why we send our scholars to overseas unis when all they have to do is bark oout the same line as it has been for 40 plus years?
The Editor,
Pardon my ignorance as a less educated commoner, in layman terms what’s “rights-based discourse”? and how does it associate with “disrupting religious harmony”? Since when this becomes a religious issue? I will be thankful if you can enlighten me to uncover the guise of Mr. Siew (pardon the pun).
What’s wrong with educating the general public with their knowledge on basic rights? How can you make assumption that the author is trying to pursue a cause under the guise of “Human Rights”? Oh dear, I must be blind or absolutely 文盲。
Honestly, I for one am not very aware of what are my basic rights as a voting citizen if without the internet. Does that surprise you. I am over 50 if you want to know my age. There are not so privilege people living in Singapore that has no access and never uses the internet as a source to understand issues that may have an impact on their life. You mean they should not know about their basic rights?
Observer,
Firstly, The Editor is not an editor of TOC.
Secondly, perhaps you missed his tongue in cheek PAP-speak.
Gerald,
Thanks. Appreciate it. This “senile” oldman here apparently has lost his wit and cool to spot “The Editor” tongue in cheek PAP-speak. Must be the stress hormones acting up. Can’t catch up with the thinking young.
what is human right ? in singapore, i only know of ‘digit right’.
RH:
1. Good essay but too focussed on law. If we take a step back from thinking, framing, conceptualising and debating about Human Rights in terms of legal terminology, what do we have?
2. We’d then be forced to think harder and in the process, see the wretched conditions many Humans live in, including Singaporeans. Once we stop framing the discussion in terms of Law and see beyond that to People, that is, Humans, then perhaps we will begin to understand Human Rights in its rightful [Human] dimensions.
3. Mr SIEW is right to pursue this noble effort from his vantage point of Law, being a lawyer, but it is not the only way and we non-lawyers need not defer to lawyers and legalese and assume that we have no role to play and no contributions to make. Everybody can contribute because everybody is a Human. We can begin that since we are all Humans, we all, each and everyone of us, do have some rights, whether these be the ones enshrined in the UDHR or more, or a different set altogether. The very fact that there are different sets of ‘Human Rights’ for different groups show that all these are probably incomplete parts of a Big Vision. Not that being incomplete means imperfect and therefore not to be taken seriously, or as in Singapore, only paid lip service to and nullified, modified, bastardised [as is everything else] to suit the whims of the LIEgime.
4. The main problem with framing the entire Human Rights discussion in legal terms is that Law is the sole monopoly of Parliament, which, especially so in Singapore, is a Rubber Stamp for the decrees of the Despot who famously “does what he thinks best, never mind what the people think”. That is, absolute monarchism. As often said, it is the Rule of LIE, not the Rule of Law, even though each Decree is indeed, enshrined as a Law.
5. Thus, we once again approach the conundrum of Absolute Power. If we frame Human Rights discussions in legal terms and the law is the whim of the vicious, petty and vindictive Emperor, what Human Rights can there be except what the Emperor feels like giving?
6. Heck, we don’t even have the most important Human Right of choosing our Rulers because elections are systematically rigged, by making fair contests impossible, and even stuffing the ballot boxes with fake PAP votes when necessary, as happened in Cheng San GRC in 1997 and almost certainly in 1963 GE and most probably also the OTC Presidential election.
7. When we cannot choose our lawmakers and lawmakers are allowed to write whatever laws they feel like having, framing the Human Rights discourse in legal terms is not very helpful. It makes for nice essays but unless these nice essays can arouse, motivate and become focusses of action, political action, little is achieved.
8. So, ultimately, we come back to the central conundrum. Can nice, legalistic essays lead to change or do we need something more? Do we need to agitate like Dr CHEE? at great personal cost and sacrifice, only to be scorned by the majority of the very Singaporeans he is fighting for? Do we need to focus all our energies on REDUCING THE EMPEROR DOWN TO SIZE? first? How can we do that? By publicising his criminal election riggings that cheats all of us? His other criminal crimes against all his victims, including me and my family? If we don’t do these, can writing nice essays be just escapism in which we feel good but know in our hearts we are doing nothing to help the Humans who should be our focus and the victims of LIE KY LHL PAP crimes, including me and my family, who are Humans and deserve at least the minimum help we deserve, maybe entitled to, as Humans?
9. I have written tonnes of words, all to no purpose. To no effect on LIE KY LHL PAP who continue their criminal attacks and debasement and degradation of me and my family with absolute impunity. Words alas, are just ASCII files on a memory stack, not bullets that can pierce LIE KY’s heart. Despite my tonnes of words, LIE KY LHL sleep soundly, eat airflown fish delicacies from Japan, enjoy the adulation of a worshipful press and grassroots leaders who kiss the very ground they walk over; and own and control wealth even monarchs cannot dream of.
10. The very term Human Rights axiomises that purely as Humans, we have Rights. Perhaps we need to start, and end, on that axiom, and not merely scour the internet for legal definitions and statutes that may divert us from pursuing this noble cause from first principles.
I think Mr. Siew hit the nail right on the head. It is quite clear that citizens have no ideas what their rights are. I think before we even discuss universal concepts of rights (which our AG seems to think is debatable as to whether they are universal at all), we probably do not even have a clear idea what fundamental liberties are afforded to us under our Constitution.
Perhaps as a suggestion, the TOC team can look into providing a series of articles introducing in layman terms the different fundamental liberties and how they work. Perhaps this will dispel the notion that Singapore has no rights at all. We do have rights, only that they are balanced against broader societal concerns. This by itself is not unique to Singapore; other countries do this balancing act too. What is unique is probably the degree of the balancing act and how it might overly protect the “society” and the state, as compared to other countries.
Only when citizens know what rights they have, can they aspire to a normative view of what their rights should be.
People in Singapore HAVE BEEN ‘cooked’ in Slow Cooker by the regime. And like any dish cooked in a CrockPot, even bones are soft enough to eat.
Certainly, a most enlightening article but allow me to highlight a point allured to in the piece proper as well as in comments (especially zz), namely the role of Responsibilities (Obligations) in the context of Rights.
From a personal point of view, I tend to enforce my rights on the foundation of my responsibilities. For example, I demand (enforce my right) to a well cooked burger since I paid for it (discharged my responsibility). Maybe its a Confucianist thing but I could never act on my rights without knowing what my responsibilities are.
In the context of the government, one could ask if a minister has the right to a high salary when his ministry, being responsible for the detention of a suspected terrorist, loses him? Another example would be the ministry’s right to detain suspected terrorists indefinitely without trial. It is certainly the responsibility of said ministry to maintain our internal security, hence it has a right to detain suspected terrorists but is the right to detain them indefinitely without trial also necessary?
As for universal human rights, for example say Article 3. The right to liberty and security of person is predicated on the responsibility of not violating other persons(agencies) or their property. As for right to life, there is the (divisive) issue of murder punishable with the death sentence.
Rights are granted either as a reward for or as a requirement in order to carry out some responsibilities. Of course, these rights should be commensurate with the required responsibilities. In principal, no less, no more. The Singapore Government quite often demands more rights at the expense of her citizens but with little talk of their underlying commensurate responsibilities (except of course economic growth).
I completely concur with zz suggestion for a series of articles on universal human rights but with the addition of commensurate responsibilities. I want to know exact what Government Responsibilities require encroachment of my Rights and if they are unnecessary (in practice this hard to say but lets just curb accesses), I will BLOODY HELL TAKE THEM BACK!
Currently, there is actually no right (however fundamental) in which the Government cannot interfere. If parliament wishes to enact a legislation that requires everyone to stand on their toes, touch noses with toe pinkie, whilst watching but not tasting that juicy burger there is nothing in legislation which denies a majority in parliament that right (so long as the purpose is per legislation eg national service).
At the most extreme end, if parliament wishes to take the life of anyone, they merely have to enact legislation to that effect. The case of gun rights is yet another example of the difference between US human rights standards and Singapore’s. Whilst it is a fundamental right to bear arms in the US, bearing arms (except in the line of specified duty) in Singapore is a death sentence. Ironically, I would hypothesise that most Singaporeans agree to the latter.
Whilst the extreme case of legislating death without what is generally regarded as justified cause is unlikely in Singapore, it is certainly a gray line how far every parliament wishes to interfere with individual rights.
Anyone who thinks that he or she (foreigner or local) has any entitlement to any rights in Singapore, is seriously mistaken. ALL political parties (chee included) recognise that. The fundamental basis of absolute parliament power will not be changed, whatever political party, opposition or otherwise is in power.
In some ways, I should be and am thankful that this line has been re-drawn by the current government to allow more rights (except to certain individuals) in Singapore. Hopefully, this line doesn’t change for the worse.
Whatever Rights there are, they serve only one purpose, and that is to avail justice to any issue involving anything, people, animals and properties .
The Rule of Law, as we can see, has always been abused by Rulers throughout history, in the past, present and surely forever. Yes, Rulers have perpetually legislate Laws to enhance and maximize their powers, power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Seen in this light, the Rule of Law disadvantages the Ruled, so, if Rights are framed and legislated by powers(Rulers), the subjects of these Rulers will forever be subjugated.
In Chinese Literature, we got to know that Justice Pao (Pao Kong-Pao Qing Tian) proclaimed that Rulers are not above their subjects when it comes to justice and that justice must be tempered with humanities(Fa zhi bu wai ren qin). Well, I do not know if the ancient Chinese had constitution, statute, gazette or any written Laws. But as we can see, justice can be meted and dispensed equitably anytime and anywhere so long as it is determined according to reasonableness(reasonability). Justice , when not written, covers everything, but justice when defined by written Laws, not only confines itself, it is likely to get skew.
Indeed, Law should and must be defined by Justice(through a justification process) and all cases(when they happened) be recorded for record purposes and not for reference. I do not see the need for reference though comparisons were always made with older cases. The reference of past cases itself is smack of lack of objectivity. If reference is to be made from past cases, can it also be said that the Laws of one country be referred to that of another since all the Laws of all countries are dealing with humanity? Is it possible for a person sentenced to death reference to a country that does not legislate death sentence? Why not?
All said, the only conclusion is that Laws must not be made by Rulers!
patriot.
Thanks. A real eye-opener for me.
Guess, should thanks Chee Soon Juan for putting a real impetus on his talks and meaning of “human rights”.
Are we ready for it?
Search our souls – how many of us instantly associated “Clown” with Chee Soon Juan, whenever his name is mentioned?
Wer are maybe less than a hundred at Cyperspace.
But Mainstream Singaporeans are in terms of hundreds of thousands.
Are they ready for “human rights” as their perception is that they got all the “human rights” they wanted under PAP Government.
“No, thank you” – so said Mainstream Singaporeans.
Clown = Chee Soon Juan’s antics = Human Rights
lim said:
Currently, there is actually no right (however fundamental) in which the Government cannot interfere. If parliament wishes to enact a legislation that requires everyone to stand on their toes, touch noses with toe pinkie, whilst watching but not tasting that juicy burger there is nothing in legislation which denies a majority in parliament that right (so long as the purpose is per legislation eg national service).
I am a little unclear on this actually. From my understanding, Singapore being a Constitutional Democracy, in name at least, should have a number of rights for its citizens enshrined in its Constitution (like the Bill of Rights). Of course in practice, it is a Procedural Democracy, meaning that the Executive can do whatever it wants since they have 2/3 majority in the Legislature allow Constitutional amendments as well as control of the Judiciary especially the Supreme Court through PM appointment of judges. From a structural point of view on the other hand, citizen rights would be protected in a nominative (without the odds stacked so badly) system.
Is this approximately the problem? Sorry I’m not Law trained so I don’t know the details.
patriot said:
Indeed, Law should and must be defined by Justice(through a justification process) and all cases(when they happened) be recorded for record purposes and not for reference.
I think that the Constitution should sets out the principals (a small number of them like the Bill of Rights) which a society wishes to uphold (the nature of Justice being one of them), among other boring things like who does what. The Laws are a codification of theses principals. Pasted, repelled or amended as and when necessary in a practical manner. These Laws can be challenged in a Constitutional Court and struck down if they violate it. The Constitution on the other hand should only be amended in very rare circumstances though something like a 2/3 majority vote in the Legislature. Basically, the Constitution defines the Laws but not the other way around.
I think Justice Pao would not be too unpleased since he could always recourse to these principals(Confucianist if he prefered) and repel/append a defective law.
Once again, I not a Law expert this is just my take on things.
Sprachen Sie Singlish wrote;
‘I think Justice Pao would not be too unpleased since he could always recourse to these principals(Confusionist if he prefered) and repel/append a defective law’.
May I add that all judges(and juries) in the World will be thrilled and most satisfied if they could recourse/resort to principals(or principles?) And they would have complete satisfaction if allow the independence to repel/append and amend a defective law.
In Singapore, the Courts have been suspected to be (very)partial in the many defamation suits filed by some leaders, resulting in suspicion of the Independence of the Judiciary. Read the many blogs enunciating the Subject.
patriot.
Some food for thought here. Do you believe that the Constitution gives you your rights, or do you believe that it merely declares your rights? The implication of it is that even if it doesnt declare your rights, your rights still exist; they cannot take it away from you. If the balancing goes too far against a person, it might make the whole issue of rights illusory in nature.
And to further muddy the issue, if you think that the Constitution merely declares your rights, then the question to ask is, what kind of rights pre-exist in the first place? Obviously this differs from people to people.
My point is the same as the one above. We talk about rights as being universal, as rights being inalienable and that the govt is the evil creature trying to take our rights away from us. But i do pause to ponder at this point. Can somebody take away anything that didnt exist in the first place? Is the so called “right” that you feel passionately about really a “human right”, or is it something that only you think is right? Seen in this manner, perhaps what our AG said wasn’t really that objectionable.
Lest anybody misunderstands and thinks I’m a govt stooge, what I mean from the above is simply that you cannot begin to argue the normative unless you have some knowledge of your position. Again, I believe the discussion on rights would be furthered if we gain a bit more understanding about our fundamental liberties as enshrined in the Constitution.
What the constitution does enshrine are certain fundamental rights (sec 9-16). However, all these rights come with the proviso that parliament can interfere with these rights. So technically, parliament still holds the key to these rights.
“Inalienable” rights only apply to US bill of rights as these rights are not subject to any proviso. In Singapore, citizens ie we have rights but subject to parliament.
It is therefore not an entitlement but a privilege extended subject to the requirements of parliament.
“Inalienable” rights only apply to US bill of rights as these rights are not subject to any proviso. In Singapore, citizens ie we have rights but subject to parliament.”
And if people (collectively even for Singapore citizens) do not like the way things go after giving power to parliament, they can always change the make-up (of Parliament) during elections (if things do not go drastically wrong). If not, like in some other countries, there will be chaotic revolutions which no one in the right frame of mind would want it to happen here in our peaceful country.
Government (or parliament of whatever you want to call it) is answerable to the people for their policies & behaviours and not the other way round in a democracy and that is why there is this concept called election and when it comes to elections, candidates come canvassing or “begging” (excuse the strong language which is needed just to drive some basic but fundamentally important point across) for our votes.
The question of rights is enshrined in our constitution,as “intent” rightly pointed out, but so is the rights of the government to deny those rights as deemed necessary or politically expedient.
For instance, how many instances of peaceful protests are permitted here? Practically none (unless it is sanctioned by the government or NTUC).
Is this what Dr Woon meant when he said local conditions must prevail over some arbitrary universal rights construct? Frankly, I would rather that we benchmark our standards of human rights with the best in the world, just have we have in the economic sphere, instead of subjecting the citizens to arbitrary restrictions on rights based on “local conditions”.
The Law Practicing Fraternity seems only interested in practicing laws a a profession rather than to seek and gave justice to the Rights of fellow Singaporean. They know Laws but not justice, it seems.
patriot.
And the question is who is to define what is justice?
A murderer sentenced to hang will regard his sentence as justice?
Do we even know what the word means?
Justice is really a subjective word.
Sparta found it just to throw deformed babies to their death. 1/2 of US found it just to own slaves so just that they found it just to fight a bloody war over the issue. US found it just to drop an atomic bomb that killed tens of thousands of people. Even today, thousands of Singapore maid owners find it just not to give a day off to maids. I don’t hear anyone echoing Kum Hong (who is a lawyer)’s views on this.
I will finally state my support of Kum Hong’s thrust. Maids (singaporean or otherwise) deserve a day off. Hear! Hear!
Justice is abstract as Human Rights and Thinking but it is not beyond objectivity. To say that some found not giving their maids any day-off is ‘justified’ can only be construed as these employers themselves that claim the justification. Throw the question into the open, I dare assure that majority will think it is ‘exploitation’, inhumane and even cruel. Human indeed is superior in that it has conscience, ‘kongdao zhi zai renxin’, ‘ justice is natural in man(kind) is not a frivolous wise saying, even the hardest of men has sympathy..
Sadly in a highly materialistic era, conscience and justice have been relegated to the back in the queue. The National Education System has neglected educating our youngs to understand and embrace humanities in the last few decades. On the contrary, our students were(are) taught success mean affordabilities in material possessions; 5Cs and what not. Even as we discuss about Human Rights here, there are many who feel that economic success should be the priority.
IS THERE ANY CLASH BETWEEN ECONOMIC PROGRESS AND HUMAN RIGHTS? The Answer from this lower secondary educated, near sixty year old man is; he sees no connection whatsoever between the two. If any, it must be a sentence I read somewhere that stated, that the US had attained its’ advanced level of developments because her Citizens Rights have been respected all along and that provided the impetus for the US people to progress to where they are today.
Allow me to state my interpretation of Justice as I understand it, which may not be scientific, quantifiable but should be ponderable. Fairness and honesty are the hallmarks of Justice, conscience, righteousness, sincerity, sympathy and propriety are component factors. Though not quantifiable, the traits are common in that they are all positive values.
Maybe the sense of Justice and sacrifice were values in the past, today it is being overwhelmed by materialism. And if it is indeed so, all the more we have to rejuvenate the SPIRIT OF JUSTICE.
patriot.
Patriot,
I agree with you about maids having a day off. I am appalled how some Singaporeans I know do not give their maids day off. There are even a few who make their maids work all day – day and night – even after midnight. For example, if they have a toddler who needs feeding at night.
When the govt rejects legislating a mandatory day off for maids, I had this question in my mind:
How many of those ministers would work day and night, 365 days a year, without a single day off, for a few hundred dollars, and stay at the office for 365 days?
You are right, it is beyond BASIC human rights. It is about conscience, indeed.
To go further, how many of those ministers would allow their own daughters to work in such conditions?
I would hazard that the answer is a BIG FAT NONE.
So, why then do we put others through this? Just because they are cheap? Just because they are foreign workers?
What godly reason could they give?
One reason the govt has given is that some maids have to care for the sick and handicapped who requires round-the-clock care. But if you think about it, shouldn’t these people have specialised care instead? Can a maid really take care of such people – round the clock?
Are maids trained for this? What about the maid’s own well-being – as a human being?
I think it was David Marshall who once said that the law is not cast in stone and that we must tamper it with conscience. He is right. For if we follow the law as if it was cast in stone, then we are no better than robots without heart. And we will treat others as robots too.
This is in complete and direct contradiction to the govt’s position of building a ‘gracious’, compassionate’ and ‘gentle’ society.
Really, I mean, can one be said to be compassionate, gracious and gentle when one forces a maid to work in such atrocious conditions?
It is hypocritical.
Andrew Loh;
thank You for your response; may I let You know that I have always have reservations of what our leadership have said.
I was made to stand under the sun in 1951, when I was a Primary One schoolboy, just to wave and welcome the first prime minister of Singapore, I found that forced duty meaningless. It was because I did not see my school mates and me contributing any meaningful purpose except to act for a ‘rousing support’, for the first time I got to know ‘propaganda’ first hand. Instinctively since then, I am wary of all politicians
Ironically, I saw old folks and young mothers with babies rushing to politicians just to have pictures taken with them and probably have their pictures appear on national television very strange. Recently, I met one big group of elderlies, all the way from Woodlands, came to Tampines St 11, in full whites, just to cheer for visiting VIPs(Politicians). Again, a ‘rousing welcome’ scene got enacted.
Everytime when a minister declares a new policy, the people can expect him/her to sing and declare like a preacher and at the end of the sermon, you will be as good as receiving a long term summon(fine). Doublespeaks by politicians were so common, Singaporeans now knows, when you hear good news, be prepared to pay for them. And here we can see the greatest act and art of hypocrisy!
patriot.
Dear People,
You can talk about Human Rights till the cows come home. But are you prepared to face discomfort in order to uphold Human Rights ?
Are you ready to make sacrifices just for Human Rights ?
Or is it all just empty talk ?
You see – there is a price to pay for everything…………….If you wanna play – they you gotta pay !!
There is also a difference between a high price and a low price. Before anyone decides to pay the highest price, perhaps it is also time to see if there is other cheaper or easier to do things.
patriot said:
In Singapore, the Courts have been suspected to be (very)partial in the many defamation suits filed by some leaders, resulting in suspicion of the Independence of the Judiciary. Read the many blogs enunciating the Subject.
I agree with your sentiments exactly. I was actually referring to the nominative or ideal case. This Constitutional Democracy which I talk about is as fictional as Justice Pao, especially in the Singaporean context. Nonetheless, the ideals of Constitutional Democracy as well as Justice Pao are worth aspiring to.
zz said:
My point is the same as the one above. We talk about rights as being universal, as rights being inalienable and that the govt is the evil creature trying to take our rights away from us. But i do pause to ponder at this point. Can somebody take away anything that didnt exist in the first place?
A interesting but disturbing question. My take in it is to side step the issue. For me rights are granted to citizens so that they can participate in society. Without these rights, society could not function. Nothing inalienable here, just rules of the game.
Think about soccer, players have the right to kick the ball but not use there hands to handle it. The referee, like the executive branch, makes sure that player only act strictly within their rights. If they didn’t obey these ground rules, the match would quickly degenerate into a brawl which is quite naturally not a match anymore.
Unfortunately, this is disturbing in the sense that these rules of the game should apply to participants within this game. Specifically, from this point of view intervention in the Myanmar situation is not justifiable although this violates my own sense of justice. This will also serve as a comment on patriot‘s notion of Justice. I have some innate but highly subjective sense of justice in this particular situation but I can’t justify them from my own principals.
The alternative notion of inalienable rights however smacks too much of a single society imposing its own morals on everyone else. What to do, life is messy.
lim said:
What the constitution does enshrine are certain fundamental rights (sec 9-16). However, all these rights come with the proviso that parliament can interfere with these rights. So technically, parliament still holds the key to these rights.
Point taken however it is still a workable situation I think. From my limited understanding, I as a citizen have a number of rights by default. These are taken away if I pose a threat to national security. The burden of proof is on the government to show that you pose a security threat before take those rights away. In the Singapore context, this notion of security threat is defined in a very “broad” way. I would say this “broadness” borders along the lines of paranoia. I would argue that excessively broad laws are actually unconstitutional and should be amended or repelled. Things like rolling detention without trial comes to mind.
Of course this is easier said than done, especially when the checks and balances of state have been subjugated by the government. Nonetheless, we need not junk the constitution and in some sense still work within the rules. Comments by Canvassing for votes would also be complementary.
Basically,I know that there are problems but wish to clarify (for myself at least) exactly what the problems and justify them.
Hi “do you speak singlish”
There is no burden of proof required by parliament. If it deigns to think any issue is subject to national security, it can pass it. We, as citizens, may like some burden of proof but that’s not required by law. It can be as absurb as pointing to the moon is a matter of national security.
Ultimately, the only check on a Singapore parliament is the vote. Anyone who claims that pointing to the moon is a matter of national security is unlikely to gain much traction with voters (but one never knows).
However, currently no political party suggest to change this law cos it is as powerful as it implies.
Ironically, even if a political party curbs its own powers by changing the constitution, another political party can change it back if it gains a majority in parliament.
We can only hope that the people voted into parliament share the same values as we do. It is thus important that the voters themselves vet the candidates and exercise responsibility in its vote.
Yes, the only importance is our VOTE.
So always vote wisely if you think you want to have proper check and balance.
There is no other way out of the predicament.
I think we have been pawned for too long.
As MM Lee said, it is because of complacency AND we are living in a
“World of Make-Belief” if we were to think that the Sg govt is infallible.
Those were words to the effect that have came out of the mouth of The Old Man
when he was commenting on the Mas Selamat’s Great Escape.
Think about it very seriously. Are we really THAT complacent?
There may be some truth in what he said.
So we must wake up from living in our world of make-belief and stop being
complacent. any more.
It is time to move into our real world and time to VOTE WISELY!
Dear lim,
after a bit of googling around, I think I get the point. Here’s my take on it but note that I’m no expert.
I was under the mistaken impression that our Constitution follows the continental model of which the German one is the one I’m most familiar with. As a Singaporean I noticed the irony with the previous statement. In this system, the 3 branch of Government namely the Executive, Legislative and Judiciary are clearly separated. The Constitution takes priority over all other laws and the Constitution Court does strike down subordinate laws that violate the Constitution from time to time even when passed by the Legislature. Much of this was done to prevent the events of 1930s to 40s from ever happening again.
In the Westminster system which ours is derived from, all laws are pass as Acts of Parliament (Legislature). Judges, appoint by the PM, can interpret these laws but are allow to make rulings when laws do not apply. These rulings affect later rulings in some way the details of which elude me. They can’t appeal to the Constitution or the rights enshrined within and strike down unjust laws or rulings.
In practice, a citizen advocate would be breaking the law (Public Entertainments and Meeting Act) for making a public speech. He cannot appeal to the Constitution since an Act has already been passed in this situation. A judge would have to rule according to whatever broad definitions are described in the Act. The citizen’s only justifcation would be on moral grounds, no more.
The only way out is for the electorate to change the composition of Parliament. In my case, this would only be vaguely useful since I had walkovers since my majority.
Actually, I wonder what would happen in a less than 2/3 majority situation. Repressive laws are still on the books and the Opposition cannot change them but will the Constitution now count for something?
Hi “do you speak English”
You are right. To change a constitution requires more than 50% of Singaporeans in more than 66% of constituencies to vote in candidates that share that same conviction. In theory it is possible. In practice, any reasonable person recognises how difficult it is. And ironically rightly so, as the constitution, unlike other laws, should be more sticky than changed just to suit any political party.
That said, if one can convince more 50% of Singaporeans in more than 66% of constituencies on anything, one can claim to have the mandate of Singaporeans.
Dear lim,
thanks! that was very helpful in clearing up matters.