The govt aside, how ready are singaporeans to protest?

Not gonna happen. Not gonna fly.

Singaporeans are selfishly over-materialistic. They are agitated only when their rice bowls are hurt. They do not care otherwise.

Asia has yet to have a Renaissance and Enlightenment. Asians are still not intellectually enlightened. They are motivated by fear, greed and cultural supremacy. Not the finer things in life.

That is why the West is still the best !

Very well said. I completely endorse the rationality of your argument. Keep it up. Write more please.

RH:
1. Nice essay. Thank you. Just to add, by way of an example, that suppose a Hotel New Hongkong collapsed in Singapore [as it did if I remember], what would you and everyone else do?

2. We would all immediately set about rescuing the trapped victims in the rubble REGARDLESS OF THEIR AGE, RACE, CULTURE, WEALTH, STATUS, etc. In other words, we would expend all efforts and resources to save them PURELY BECAUSE THEY ARE HUMAN BEINGS.

3. Thus, Human Rights must be seen in this light, that there are certain rights inalienably fused with just being Human, and not because we are a citizen, non-citizen, FDW or FT, black or white, rich or poor, grad or non, LIE family or not, etc.

4. If we accept 3, then it also follows that together with having Rights simply by being Human, we also have Obligations to Other Human Beings, since reciprocity often results from having or enjoying Rights.

5. All these then also lead to the concept that We Should Help The Fallen even when it is not so obvious as in a building collapse, natural disaster, or a manmade suffering such as Burma’s Junta. This last brings me a little to my own case, that of govt-created suffering for me and my family, using multi-millions of taxpayers’ monies. Govts have no business creating suffering FOR WHATEVER REASON. It is not their business. There is enough suffering among Singaporeans already, as the number of suicides a day shows. With many, many, more being pushed steadily along towards the edge. Haven’t govts anything better to do? No nobler purpose of being, no aim in life? Just to show off power plays for publicity stunts for self gratification and self interest?

6. Clearly, if we are prepared to dig through rubble to save someone simply because s/he is Human, WHY THEN DO WE WAIT UNTIL DESPERATE AND LIFE-THREATENING before the govt even begins to acknowledge that the poor need help, that even the middle class need help, that many, many things are wrong with the system? It is this last that is perhaps key to everything. That LIE KY LHL PAP and their PAPaganda media insist in portraying that SG is a Utopia, without a single fault or blemish, perfect in every way, a paragon like the LIEs, model for the universe, etc, and therefore no need to change or adapt or adopt any principle or policy that even slightly erodes the unfettered power of the Emperor.

7. 6 is thus a big issue when talking about Human Rights in SG. It is the stumbling block that is immovably preventing any progress on Human Rights in SG. It is this that explains Walter WOON’s fawning parody of LIE KY’s longheld doctrines. I thought he was intelligent.
Or honest. Yet another corrupted.

This regime is without doubt , paranoid. And this is evident by the introduction of laws regarding assembly of 5 or more people, banning of some cycling event, choir performance, etc, and overreacting to the “white elephant” protest by students. I do not think the people are ready and the regime is definitely not comfortable with any kind of mass protest. However, there is a non confrontational way that is within the law. The most appropriate moment with the best visual impact would be on national day, 9th Aug. All those who feel they need to send a message to the regime , can wear black for the entire day and go about your planned activities. The visual contrast for those attending the national day parade will be just incredible especially when you know who will be wearing white. It will be a statement to “them” that we are ‘black sheep’. Anway I am just kidding. Please don’t blame me should ‘they’ decide to wear black as well, after reading this post.

RH you are back! Be careful not to commit a GN!

In the 1960s and 1970s, the presence of secret societies shown that people at that time were quite accustomed to the idea of protests and realising their rights to fight for what they think was right. Governmental control wasn’t strong since at that time the political situation in Singapore was quite tense, especially with the communist uprising and racial discriminations.Thus people saw the need for a strong political party, hence a strong and effective government to curb these social problems. By 1990s, these social problems almost ceased existence especially with people getting more educated and knowing what is right and wrong, and of course with much government intervention in the form of stricter laws. Now in the 21st century, people still rely much on the government to do everything for them, thus providing an alternative for corruption to set in. It is from this point onwards did Singaporeans completely lost their human rights. With the government controlling the media as well, the words “human rights” had disappeared.

Exactly what the doctor ordered! This article has made clear the dual role of Rights and Responsibilities.

I would like to push this a little further and try to make the connection of Rights and Responsibilities with so called “Asian Values”. Actually, I don’t like this term since it implies that Asia is culturally homogeneous which it most certainly is not. On top of this, the Government never quite defines what theses values are although I always had the impression that this was just the latest spin on Confucianist thought. I will assume that this is the case.

Anyway, I feel that thinking about Rights and Responsibilities is exactly the same as thinking about the Reciprocity Principal in Confucianism. For example, it is the son’s responsibility to show filial piety towards his father and in return can expect the right to benevolence from his father.

When talking to Singaporeans, I seldom invoke the word Rights but talk about Reciprocity although the idea is always at the back of my mind. There are several advantages to this. Firstly, uncle and aunty won’t jump up and accuse me of bias from the first sentence. Secondly, this makes comments like those of Mr Woon’s just divisive tactics since the principal he is arguing from is essentially the same as the “fanatics” (the article touches on this implicitly). And most importantly, we can hold him accountable to his own principal and show how much in practice he deviates from them.

Hopefully, this series of articles will go somewhere to reducing the “Rights” taboo. Unfortunately, the issue of whats a filial son to do when his father has forgotten benevolence remains unanswered.

顺民者昌，逆民者亡

I would urge that you be careful about people who seem to advocate rights. These very same persons might be those who are infringing on your own rights, to privacy for one. I would urge that you be careful about those who seem to advocate rights to free speech and assembly, because these persons (foreign institutions or media) might be instigating you to violence, and so benefit from that in some way.

Nothing’s gonna happen guys ! Until Singaporeans are prepared to face discomfort in order to uphold abstract ideals – the status quo remains.

Singaporeans are too materialistic. They do not want to leave their comfort zone in order to uphold Human Rights. For them – the material comforts which the PAP has brought – far outweighs the pain caused by – for example – the civil disobedience of Chee Soon Juan.

The fault lies with Singaporeans who have sold their souls to the devil himself ! You get what you vote for and Singaporeans deserve this Government.

There is a price to pay for everything. If you want liberal democracy, human rights etc – then you must be prepared for some discomfort. However if you value material comfort more than abstract ideals – or if you have no soul nor conscience – then I guess Singapore’s the place for you.

By the way – I sincerely hope that you do NOT misunderstand me. I whole-heartedly support Human Rights. Its just that I do not see it as part of Asian political discourse in my lifetime. One needs an Enlightenment first before the populace can accept the ideals of Human Rights.

Too bad that I won’t see it in my lifetime.

Hi;
all people need Rights and in a country governed by Rule of Law, not everyone is ‘qualified’ to ask, demand and even fight for them. In theory, everyone is entitled to them(Rights), in practice, they have to be approved/given by your lords(rulers).

This blog shows an anomaly in our human world, that is something a man is supposedly entitled naturally, has got to have that entitlement of Rights approved and allowed by his ruler. And now and here, we are told Singapore(ans?) needs Rights; since when we never need the Rights?

Now that not everyone is qualified and empower to ask, demand and fight for the Rights, who are volunteering to start helping Singaporeans to get their Rights. I do not see people in Legal Practices, the Magistrates, the Lawyers and their Law Society, even our Government, none gave a hoot to the Rights of Sigaporeans? So, how is this blog going to help the average man to go about getting back their Rights when professionals are all silent about it?

NMP and Practicing Lawyer Siew Kum Hong blogged about his concerns about Rights; certainly the peoples’ Rights have been much curtailed over the years. But the question is why Law Professionals have never mentioned about it and rightly and lawfully get the Rights back for themselves and the people?? Was it because they are selfish? Or do the Law Professionals fear as much as the average man about OB Markers? I think self-interest must be the cause for their avoidance.

patriot.

I’m not very good with lawyer speak. So is there any way 14a,14b, 14c be ever achieved in Singapore even though it is written in the constitution? Or is that a pipe dream?

Freedom of speech, assembly and association
14. —(1) Subject to clauses (2) and (3) —

(3) Restrictions on the right to form associations conferred by clause (1) (c) may also be imposed by any law relating to labour or education.

Good read.

But we are less than a hundred in Cyperspace.

How are you going to spread this message?

How are you going to take the first step to educate the base that si teh key to political power in SIngapore?

HDB Heartland and labor unions?

The very first step to satrt the process of a civil society, the first step to live the “Hman Rights” as in your essay is to delink NTUC and labor aprties from PAP controlled; and abolished tripatitism.

I think in modern 20th Century, plitical power and civil rights first start from labor union activists.

Sadly, PAP knew it too.

” But the question is why Law Professionals have never mentioned about it and rightly and lawfully get the Rights back for themselves and the people?? Was it because they are selfish? Or do the Law Professionals fear as much as the average man about OB Markers? I think self-interest must be the cause for their avoidance.”

The law has been LKY, Law of Kuan Yew, since Francis Seow, the ex-president of Law Society in 1986, was removed by LKY and that’s why the law is so kangaroo and if someone tell me Dr Chee make a mockery of the court, I laugh because how can a court be made a mockery when it is already a mockery itself decades ago especially the court of today is still very much the court of the LKY since Francis Seow been banished from Singapore. For example, how can someone claim he is still be a virgin if he already lose his virgin ?

Don’t tell me that a court is only just if it is not nothing to do with politics. In the eye of law, a court has to be just and uphold justice just like what David Marshall had done. When the court fails to abide by its principle, a court is nothing but a kangaroo court. Even the devil knows the bible well.

Amend last statement

“Don’t tell me that a court is only just and righteous as long as it does not deal with politics. In the eye of law, a court has to be just and uphold justice just like what David Marshall had done irrespective of any standings. When the court fails to abide by its principle, a court is nothing but a kangaroo court. Even the devil knows the bible well.”

The rights to assembly, association, and speech (amongst all generally referred to as the rights to Liberty in this context,) in Singapore are enshrined in the Constitution yet are frequently obscured or subjugated by prevailing laws set in place by the People’s Action Party.

The question repeatedly asked is thus: Why are the rights to Liberty denied to us in their full form?

Simply, the political climate in Asia has never allowed the flourishing of rights seen in the European or American sphere. Each Asian Country allow rights that rest uncomfortably between the extremes of authoritarianism and, what i can only term as laissez-faire authoritarianism.

It has never been the wish of the incumbent Government, and the famished people, to sacrifice expedient political strongmanship for what could tenously be deemed as inimical to economic growth.

With year-on-year growth of the economy and corresponding exposure to Western liberal ideals, have we not seen an according relaxation of our authoritarian/parochial mindset?

I believe the question thus, is not whether the Government will accord us our basic rights, but when the time is ripe.

And this is where, the debate should be focused. Should Chee Soon Juan be praised for his continous efforts at civil disobedience to force the Government’s hand? Should Low Thia Kiang and Sylvia Lim be lambasted for their efforts to play by the system, get in the system, and creating a general sense of Opposition accountability?

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”.

My humble thoughts and suggestion as a “senile” citizen that may or may not see the light at the end of the tunnel as far as drastic amendment to Singapore’s current policies on Human Rights issues.

1) Until majority if not every Singaporean are aware of their common rights (not just the Constitution Part IV section 9 to 16 declarations found in http://statutes.agc.gov.sg/ ), the need to disseminate all the “Buts”, “Ifs” ,”Subject to” and so on supplement ~ that’s the fine print, and exercise their “civic duties” when call for, it’s a long road to battle for the change we hope and wished for.

What is really needed to achieve the aforesaid 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, we did it mainly for the goodness of Singapore as a whole) for the kind law-trained professionals volunteering to disseminate the massive amount of law jargons with its associated fine print into layman term to enable the online commoners (ordinary citizens who are not trained in law profession) to understand our basic rights and in turn we spread the words to those who are less privilege or those who do have no access to the internet or are less fluent with English language…etc. This arduous task has to at least reach 80% of the public.

2) 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?”

Please also bear in mind that “Freedom” of anything comes with everyday social Responsibilities. Simply put in a nutshell, the respect of other individual’s privacy rights and POV. In principle, I have to agree with Dr. Syed Alwi’s assessments of the current mentality of the majority of Singaporeans based on the numerous blog subject matters, discussions, views exchanged in the blogsphere. You can’t help but think, is this what is happening in Singapore now? But I am optimistic that this will change in time as they gain further exposure through aging and experiences encountered and the fear factor gradually removed.

3) Granted if the candid responses in point 2 is a resounding yes in the majority through either market or online non-bias independent survey (we need legally acquired facts, and loads of them, not just empty talks). Can we remove the hostile attitude and be gracious enough to suggest to the ruling constituent authority (they are humans too) of such request to lobby enough support for amendments to take place in parliament (just like what Kum Hong has done for Section 377A albeit the outcome is short of success, nevertheless this seemed to be most democratic and civic).

人以和为贵。

The Law practitioners in Singapore seem strictly confined to practicing laws as a profession, as for justice? What’s that?

patriot.

Thank you Observer.

Perhaps when certain characters and personalities are no longer around and the fear factor reduced – perhaps then – Human Rights will be part of the Singaporean psyche.

But the biggest stumbling block is still the Singaporean mindset itself.

Ultimately Singaporeans must be prepared to make sacrifices and face discomfort – if they wish to uphold the abstract ideals of Human Rights.

Indeed – Chee Soon Juan has been talking about this for a long time now. But how many Singaporeans are prepared to join his “crusade” ? I admire CSJ. Most Singaporeans who criticize his methods are really people who are afraid of the consequences. Fear and selfish materialism – pure and simple. No need to beat around the bush. Singaporeans are simply too scared of losing their material comforts. Thats why they reject CSJ !!

I am NOT advocating SDP. But what I am saying is that the rejection of the SDP by Singaporeans is simply a manifestation of their selfish materialism.

Singaporeans are simply not willing to leave their comfort zone and face discomfort in order to uphold abstract notions of Human Rights……….

After all – Mahatma Gandhi was prepared to make many many sacrifices….Are you ??

[...] came across an interesting article posted on The Online Citizen [...]

Dr. Syed Alwi,
Well said. I am neither party’s advocate either. However, i have different perspective regarding the contribution that can be made to this cause. There is not need of blood shed to convince people of change. Brawl action will make things worse.

Change is inevitable and I truly believe the ruling party is very aware of this (they are humans too). Somehow, I felt that the majority of Singaporean had this sentiment that there is this constant misunderstanding that the current economy is going to stay (I hope I am dead wrong on this assumption), therefore, it is time to move on to other areas. The reality is, Singapore’s infrastructure is very fragile (individual associates and closed friends that i spoke to have differing views on this, kind of 50/50 mixed) there is really not much room for error if not no room for error. Unlike our most competitive neighbor Hong Kong (most popular comparison), they have the backing of Greater China.

So what does basic Human Rights has to do with the economy? Indeed very connected if you think deeper. ““Freedom” of anything comes with everyday social Responsibilities (that is without a doubt). I think (purely on assumption) that is one of the biggest fear factor the ruling party is most concerned with. If the flood gates are open, and if there are some irresponsible people who started to abuse it, you know that is going to create social unrest. When there is social unrest, it will disrupt everyday life and so to the economy, a sort of domino effects and so on.
Reading till here, some I assume will start to stereotype my view as a “Convert”, “Brainwashed”, “PAP lacky” and what not. If I am wrong on my assumptions, I will be delighted. If I am right, well, I can only say, that just nailed your assessment of the mentality of the people. Can you blame them? Honestly, no, you just need to exercise patience and try to educate them by sharing.

So, alternatively, if we cannot change the rule (basically, any amendments to the constitution or acts will need 2/3 of parliament members vote – correct me if I assume wrong), can we do our part to suggest amendments to parliament as I have stated in my earlier comment? This is less confrontational. May be, let’s give it a trial period of 6 months to a year (well, will have to make calculated risk that is acceptable). It may not be a good suggestion, however, if it did get adopted, its’ a big step forward. Just a thought. Naïve? Out of touch?

Dear Observer,

I too – do NOT support violence etc. However CSJ & SDP supports civil disobedience, protests, demos etc etc.

I have nothing to say about this except that Singaporeans are NOT prepared to participate in SDP’s civil disobedience. Singaporeans are NOT Ghandis ! They are way too materialistic for that. They will not leave their comfort zone to support SDP !

Yes – Singapore is very fragile. But it all depends on your expectations. If you are satisfied with an average performance – then you can accept more risks. However if you want first class infrastructure etc – then you cannot take risks.

Again – its the materialistic mindset. Politics is NOT only about the economy but in Singapore – we have been programmed to think in terms of the economy only.

I just came back from Malaysia. Yes Malaysia is far less developed than Singapore but their people seem happy at this compromise. Perhaps they are less materialistic than Singaporeans.

At the end of the day – if you frame the issue in terms of economics – then of course political freedoms come second to economic growth. Thats what LKY has been advocating all along. That in order to achieve economic success – we must accept some sacrifices of our political freedoms.

Ultimately it will be Singaporeans who will decide. It is they who must weigh the pros and cons of Human Rights versus Economic Growth.

SDP thinks they can get Economic Growth without sacrificing Human Rights. I disagree. To me – there IS a trade-off.

PAP thinks that Human Rights is NOT important so long as there is Economic Growth. I also disagree !! Human Rights IS important to me.

The issue at heart here – is our value system. How do we value Human Rights in light of the materialistic demands of Economic Growth ? How to draw the line ? What to compromise on ? How to balance ? Its all about our VALUES as a society……

Look into your heart and soul for that….Only you yourself can answer that question………Not the PAP nor the SDP………

After all the merry go round that you have led us to meander, in short you are still advocating the status quo as deduced from your following statement.

“can we do our part to suggest amendments to parliament as I have stated in my earlier comment? ”

For a while, I almost fell asleep from a trance but I must commend that it is one of the best mind tricks I have come across.

There are no lack of good suggestions. Just do it and we will know by the results.

Originally posted as a comment to the above article by Irony of Tyranny on
11 June 2008:

Only inhuman beings do not like/want human rights. I am sure animals do not
like human beings to have the right to kill and mutilate them for selfish interests.
And there are people who are fighting for animal rights and environment rights.
Why not human rights? These are the most fundamental rights of all rights for the
human species!

Especially for Singapore, that has no natural resources EXCEPT human
resources, human rights must be of paramount importance. These are the
corner stones that will allow our human resources to develop to their fullest
potential. They should not be controlled by any one party for its own selfish end,
otherwise the nation will suffer in the long-run in the future. As it is now, we are
already seeing our own human resources being unable to compete with foreign
talents and foreign-trash, resulting in policies favouring the relentless and
persistent influx of such people to support our industries and economy.

Too much control and regulations are never good for a people who aspire to be
innovative and creative. They only serve to stifle the initiatives of the various
categories of natural talents to develop and flourish to their maximum potential.
In the past, when Singapore was still backwards, there could be a need to
channel our human resources to various sectors of industry. But, today, the whole
world is different. Singapore is different. We have advanced to First World status.
Therefore, our human resources must also be developed to First World class.

It must not be that only our leaders are of First World class, drawing First World
salaries and enjoying a First World standard of living while the rest (the majority)
of our people have not reached First World standards at all. Our standard of living,
our income, our enjoyment, our education, our entertainment and our medical
treatment must be of the same for both leaders (the minority) as well as the rest
of our people (the majority). If the disparity is too great, then something is
seriously wrong.

What is this something that is seriously wrong? It is the inability of the majority
(human resources) to challenge the minority (management/leaders). Why have
we come to this pathetic state of affairs? It is because our trade unions are
almost totally ineffective and incompetent to challenge pro-employer and pro-govt
policies, schemes and regulations, which contribute to the lob-sided advantages
in favour of those in positions of control against those who are being controlled.
This is the very fundamental problem in our society today. And why has this
fundamental problem come into existence today? It is because of the avoidance,
prevention and curtailment of our exertion and practice of our basic human rights
to their fullest.

Why is it that USA, with such a short history, is able to progressed to become the
World’s only Super-Power and the World’s largest economy, while Asian
countries are lacking behind? It is because the USA allows human rights groups
to be formed to serve as a counter-balance against abuses of power, while the
Asian countries continue to practice the ancient mode of top-down management
of state affairs (purely based on authoritarian thinking, methods and practices)
because those in positions of power wish to perpetuate their power and are
therefore very afraid of losing their power.

This fear of losing power is a mental sickness that has to be cured in order for
a country to develop to its fullest potential. Power must never be held in the hands
of only a few people because these few people, no matter how good their
sincerity and integrity can be, are not infallible. They are human after all. They
can make mistakes based on bad judgment, poor counsel, poor timing,
carelessness, pressure of work, conflicting interests, global influences, friendly
and neighbouring countries’ diplomatic influences, selfish political objectives,
and a string of other possible conditions. Moreover, it can be seen that the longer
a group of people holds onto power, the longer they want to be in power. And the
longer they want to be in power, the more they will paint a nice and beautiful
picture of themselves through all the means and measures at their disposal.

So, with such objectives in mind, what would this small group of people do? They
would certainly make full use of the state’s machinery to their fullest advantage to
ensure that they can be voted into power again and again every few years. This
include the channeling and harvesting of top talents to be on their side. And this
is a very selfish attitude and objective, which can never be for the good of the
nation as a whole, nor matter what kind of rational arguments people may want
to put forth.

Without people, the human resources, a country is just an empty shell. How can
the state administrative machinery and state resources being utilised to the
advantage of a small group of people against the advantage of the majority of
people be good for the nation as a whole? How can it even be considered as for
the national interest? Who forms the nation? Just the leaders alone? If this is so,
then it must be the most absurd meaning of nationhood!

In order to curtail selfish interests of a certain small group of people,
Singaporeans must not continue to sleep and disregard the importance of
exerting our basic human rights. Singaporeans must wake up to the call to
ensure that our basic human rights, as enshrined in the United Nations Charter,
are not trampled upon and violated at will by the very people who proclaim that
they are doing things for our own good.

Dear Irony of Tyranny,

And so who is going to give you your rights ? And how do you plan to obtain your rights ?

Singaporeans ? Who ?

Dr Syed, absolutely without a doubt about your views on VALUE. The irony is, each individual (be it Singaporean or elsewhere) will have its measure. You are right as well as how passionate are people willing to sacrifice for a cause? There will be no simple resolution without much debate and deep thinking that has far reaching impact.

We are all thinking human beings and each and everyone or a group of us will have a differing view and interest in almost anything abstract. The balancing act requires enormous contributions and thoughts from both ends (whether you are current ruling parties or opposition parties – politically speaking).

I beg to differ using other countries as a measure as each and every country be it democratic, socialist or communist, they have their own sets of home issues to address. However, the quantum difference here is the size and natural reserves of the country. You cannot ignore the fact that within Singapore, a tiny sovereign city state with virtually no natural resources to feed its population without imports, and due diligence of its human workforce, stability of the economy will inevitably be the overriding factor. It is not a given. And yes, I agree, if you lower the expectations and willing to compromise, it is conceivable.

I do not disagree with you on the mentality and the passion of Singaporeans. As I said, as a Singaporean, I understand that well and having lived and worked in 3 different democratic countries including the United States for the past 15 odd years, I have the privilege to expose myself to different cultural settings and mindset of its natives and migrants. There are deep misconception about anyother countries other than their own if you talk to someone that has no exposure, never leave the country, never access the internet (during its infant stage and not so widely used as compared to now). But wait a minute, are they dead wrong with their perception? I think educating the public is an arduous chore and requires patience but that does not mean the current mentality of Singaporeans mindset cannot be change. It takes time and enormous amount of patience, as the expression goes, one man’s meat is another’s poison. There will always be reservations, skepticism, outrage, support and what not in any policies change (it is not an exclusive Singapore trait).

The misconception here I think (allow me), is we want change to take effect regardless of its possible hidden consequences without understanding whether the majority are ready to shoulder the social responsibilities. In principle, I applaud CSJ and other activist’s lobbying spirit, but I have to disagree with the tact deployed. Ghandi did not free India with brawl action (if history serves me right). If one way does not work, we have to find the alternatives that are mutually acceptable. As much as I disagree with the many policies that are current in place, I do not think the ruling parties are heartless people.

The dispute will continue with differing views. But I view it as an engagement of the commoners (like me) as long as we view each controversial subject in an objective perspective and do not venture into personal vendetta. If that can be seen and done, it somehow imply there’s certain maturity coming of age. With that, I certainly hope change will come sooner. Regardless of any policy, you are entitled to dream and hope.

Dear Observer,

I too have lived and worked in the USA and Malaysia ! Yes – different countries face different problems.

I concur that there is a trade-off between Human Rights and Economic Growth, and the focus of this regime is Economic Growth. The people who benefit from the system and think for themselves only, will support the system. However I believe there are many who feel the present regime have gone overboard in the pursuit of Economic Growth and at the same time not doing a good job in distributing the benefits. There is a need to redefine this balance. And the people are beginning to realise they cannot continue to let one man set the agenda. The recent outcome in Malaysia is the best lesson and inspiration for Singapore. Let the votes do the talking, because anything else is not effective. I see Badawi responding to his people.

Good point Black Sheep !

“In principle, I applaud CSJ and other activist’s lobbying spirit, but I have to disagree with the tact deployed”

His lobbying spirit goes hand in hand with the tact deployed by him lah (package deal lah). Without his special tact, he would not have warranted the attention of our ultimate superior one and hence your applaud.

You are good but you are marketing the wrong kind of koyok.

I agree CSJ is a package deal. Last time, regular size. Now family sized.

Sleeping Beauty,
Thank you for your taking your time to read and for your compliments. The least I can deduce from your comment is that you care.Taking out of context, I do not blame you for reaching the conclusion that implied I am advocating Status Quo. If you are not bore by the lengthy comment, I would hope you take a bit of your time and read the comments I have posted in Kum Hong’s piece. I think you will get a better understanding on where I stand. Basically, I am trying my best to be as impartial as I could possibly be in sharing my POV per subject matter. I have no intention to influence others with my personal assessment. If it causes you discomfort, my sincere apology.

Chinaman,
Will be good to hear more views on what is needed to make it work. Isn’t it?

By no mean I am getting personal but I felt the need to response to both Sleeping Beauty and Chinaman. As wherever there are doubts, the best form of clarification is through engagement of concstructive exchange of views . Afterall, that’s the fundamental value of “Freedom of Expression” (pardon the pun).

Sleeping Beauty,

Just to clear your doubts. Here’s another piece of my comment that I had posted on Farquhar’s “The Phoney War”.

My personal view as an ordinary commoner is that until we ( the citizens of Singapore), sharing the same sentiment exercise that kind of unity and selfless characteristic of the China citizens, volunteers and the likes seen in the recent Sichuan earthquake rescue and rebuilding effort; garner enough signatures to partition for constructive change (no brawl actions or bulldozing tactics), looking through Singapore Constitutions as a commoner (I could be wrong), I think we will not see any drastic change to our current Judiciary system or Policies currently deployed any time soon.

Can we achieve that? I seriously doubt so as each an every individual (including myself), we have our own priorities and more so, when we are confronted with such issues, apart from making our voice heard through internet, the only other alternative is exercising our right during voting.

Obviously at moment, there had not been many worthy Oppositions that the majority think it is worth their votes thereby creating a balance in power. Without this balance, the one and only one way we can do sensibly within the Singapore legal framework is to voice our collective concerns either to our constituent MP or a collective partition to our authority.

I believe some will argue that this effort is futile because some had tried and failed miserably. Honestly, I personally appreciate the spirit of those oppositions for trying, however, I don’t think I can honestly say I concur the method and tact applied. However, I think if we are persistent in trying in a non-confrontational and constructive way, I honestly think our voices will not go un-notice. It’s sad, but its reality and I think we should at any given time, maintain our sober mind and be a little more patient if we cannot achieve enough unity to make an impact. It is my personal view and by no means am I trying to upset any individual that has differing views.

I think many of the people do not have an iota of deep reflection that by participating in this TOC forum YOU are excercising your HUMAN RIGHTS in SINGAPORE (plse read past forums/discussions). Many people had expressed in writing f***, sh**, ass**** C**** without due respect the feelings of other people as splitting out offensive languages are like pouring out beans without care and responsiblities that affect your neighbours. This is bad. This is low-down. This is immatured. Talk sense and people will read line of argument and, talk nonsense and people will skip your profane tale.

What Human Rights are we talking about?
Let me relate this story from my mother who passed away in 1981 at age 74. Just 50 years ago during the Japs occupation in Singapore(1941-1945) we have to bow to Japs soldiers whenever one met them on the road. And that “idiot” soldier is only a private in rank!! and just joined the army and passed/or failed basic training in Taiwan/Japan as what we known as BMT now. If one did not bow and wish that “idiot” soldier, Ah Ha! you CGH and cannot see daylight!

My mother also related to me that the present Kallang Bridge was a “chop heads” ground during this period. Many human heads were chopped and hung on poles along this Kallang bridge to instil fear and brain tortured onto the people. This was human rights by the Japs!

What human rights (even basic) are we talking about? We do not even have food and, don’t talk about 3 meals! or Kentucky chickens during the Japs period?? People of those period still survived today can testify that everyday food common are tapioca, tapioca…. even the dog also do not want to eat when fed by my elder brother!!

What freedom?
God blessed. We should count ourselves lucky. We determined our own destiny. If one is not happy with the type of environment and progress one is in, he/she can pack up and see for oneself by travelling round the world to see, to compare and to settle down in another so called “greener pastures”. But do not behave like one Asian-American recently who gave up Singapore citizenship, decided to have “one hand coke and one hand burger” and participate in local politics! A Chinese saying, ‘One leg here and one leg there”.

I want to tell him on the face, “Yankee, Go Home and get lost”

Dear Oscar Choy,

What you are talking about is World War 2 – not the current situation. To be fair – you must compare with other countries today – and not second world war stories !

The truth is that Asia has a very bad Human Rights record when compared to the West. Why should we demand less ? Why should we accept less ?

Oscar Choy. Singapore under the Japanese occupation is a different situation. The Japanese were the invaders and treated the vanquished with disdain. It was obvious the Japanese do not believe in human rights. Certain countries in Europe under German occupation also suffered a similar fate. I am sure you are well aware of Hitler. However the Americans were far more civilised in the way they dealt with a defeated Japan. There are many US foreign policies one can agree or disagree, but their system of democracy in the long run has actually made the world a lot safer, and the Singapore government recognises that. Every citizen has a stake in the country and should determine their destiny collectively, rather than one man setting the agenda. This is the folly of allowing one political party to dominate for so long without check and balance. I believe those who are not happy with the environment or progress should not pack up and leave , but make an even greater effort collectively to bring about a change by letting their votes do the talking at the next elections. Impossible is nothing.

What a lovely debate going on when Oscar Choy decided to wade in.

OScar Choy – on one side, presumably an ageing baby-boomer, refelcting on the sentimentals of HDB heartlanders.
Like one posting I read at Hammershpere on a female WP activists selling WP newsletter and got scolded by an old woman as “trouble-maker” and pointed proudly to her home which she can afford under PAP Government.
very thankfully for that to.

That is enough of “human right” for her.

On the other side, perhaps, Gen-X and Millennials espousing “human rights” which baby-boomers never have, never understand and never wanted.

You cannot have “human rights” when in the first place you never have it; nor do you understand what is “human rights”.

Yes, thanks to those pieces by Siew Kum Hong and Ng E-Jay, my knowledge of”human rights” had improved from zilch to knee height of a grasshopper.

And to think that I have live for over 50 years, an impoverished kampung boy, borught up in an attap house, well-water, studied under oil lamp, candle, mud-track, managed to save enoguh to study 3-year in UK university, wrk attachment in USA, Holland, SE asia, Macau and Dubai…and all without benefit of “human rights” as defined over here.

I do trust you all realised the great disconnect on the definition of “human rights” a perceived by Baby-boomers and most of Gen-X and the rest of Millennials as presently viewed by Chia Ti Like and msot of you here.

And if you want SIngaporeans to accept the concept of human rights, then the very first step is to educate Singaporeans on the meaning of “human rights”.

Starting now.

But it is an uphill battle with MSM controlled with PAP definition of “human rights”.

And the one good thing that Chee Soon Juan did is to highlight “human rights” which set people like me thinking perhaps he got a point…which led me to study and read up more on human rights.

And come GE2011, when Chee Soon Juan can marshalled credible Millennals as candidates, people like me are prepared to give SDP the benefit of reasonable doubt and voted for them.

The American gave a nice name to this cocnept: “Mercy F**k”.

Anyway come GE2011, disgruntled baby-boomers like me will even vote for a dumb jackass anytime against a PAP candidate.

in summary, if you want to push for “human rights” in Singapore, you got to educate SIngaporeans on the meaning of “human rights”.

it is not materialism, it is not the fear factor; but simply that knowledge had been suppressed or shuttled asided and average Singpaoreans haven’t got a clue of what consitutes “human rights” and can’t even recognise it..
Even if “human rightss” jumps up and bit them on the nose.

Dear Lai CF,

I have to disagree with you. Singaporeans are a well educated lot. They know what Human Rights is. Anyone with an O level cert has some idea of Human Rights.

Its just that their love for material comfort overcomes their conscience on matters concerning Human Rights.

Its materialism alright………..

Dear Caring People,

Human Rights begin at home and from your heart.
Relax and cool down. Why get so work up? Hey, you know something? This is supposed to be a tribute to the 60th UDHR. So lighten up and let’s engage our exchanges in a civilized way. I am a bit tire of the focus on government mandate.

I like to end the Human Rights Focus Week sharing with this anecdote. Through the exchanges of views and numerous differing opinions expressed by all caring citizens pertaining to the Human Rights issues and there is not short of “shouting match” in words. Quite a dramatic exchange of views indeed albeit this is what it is all about for a nation of citizens to grow. Let’s exercise a little civility and continue the good effort. At the end of the day, good cause will always find its way to the joy of the good Samaritans.

Reviewing again what “Sleeping Beauty” commented in response to my comment. I must honestly say, initially, I was indeed a bit upset on her mindset. Therefore I stated to make clarifications by reposting and directing her to my previous comments posted in other similar topics. Then it suddenly dawn on me, I like that “Just Do it” attitude. So NIKE™!

As I said in my opening statement, Human Rights begin at home and from your heart. Here are a list of things I suggest we the caring citizens can all start with while we continue our debate (I don’t know when this is going to end or will we see the light at the end of the tunnel). By no means this is exhaustive.

1) If you have got a maid, give your maid at least half a day off if not a full day for a start.
2) If you have kids, allow your kids to voice their views with reasoning. Fold up your corporal punishment such as canning, spanking. Remember, they are only kids. More so if they are teenagers.
3) If you have grand parents, parents or elders, treat them with respect and kindness. They don’t have to be your kins for you to show them care.
4) If you have siblings, try to work together and help each other.
5) Proactively invite your neighbors to tea, lunch, dinner or just a gathering and exchange kind deeds. Be sociable and extend genuine care.
6) If you are an employer, treat your employees with respect. Overtime does not necessary convert to productivity. Work is not all about the job, take time to understand your employee’s personal issues. Likewise for employees, be committed to what you are doing. Treat it as a career rather than a job. Be nice to your fellow colleagues. In both cases, shed off that “Petty Coat”.
7) If you have pets, remember, it’s a life time commitment. Treat them with unconditional love and spend quality time with them as you would with your kids, parents, friends, colleagues, and neighbors.
8) Learn to relax yourself. Life is not all about money and work.

The above examples do not require a mandate from the government or any law or rules and what not for you to exercise your Human Rights. Just do it! Be a good Samaritan, spread the good deeds and go infect others like a contagious virus. Bless you all! Its time for this “Senile” citizen to take a break to relax and let loose. Gees, this is hard work.

Oh, Thank you TOC and Kum Hong and E-Jay. It’s a pleasure visiting this blog, wonderful works. Who says Singaporean are dull and robotic. We are as human as others living in this planet earth. Any thoughts on spinning a topic on “How Climate Change affects Us?”.

Observer,

You have put it succintly. Human Rights, like charity, begins at home. :)

Climate change? Hmm… now you’ve got us thinking… :)

Dear People,

I fully agree with what Observer has just said.

Human Rights begins with the values we imbibe in our children at home.

If we are selfish and are only motivated by our base instincts like fear and greed – then I don’t think that our children will care about Human Rights.

At the end of the day – its all a question of VALUES. How do we value Human Rights versus Economic Materialism ?

# Dr Syed Alwi said on June 12th, 2008 5.53 pm:

“Dear Irony of Tyranny,

And so who is going to give you your rights ? And how do you plan to obtain your rights ?

Singaporeans ? Who ?”

=================================================================

Dear Dr Syed Awi,

The answer to your personal question is “I give myself the rights.”

BUT if your question is meant for Singaporeans in general, then my answer is:

Only Singaporeans, including you and me, can give themselves the human
rights. The collective will, collective consciousness and collective wisdom will
make that happen.

It is the same as moral values, ethics, morality, etiquettes, manners, decorum,
compassion, empathy and common decency.
It is in the upbringing as well as in the education of ourselves and our children.
It is how one values and respect oneself in relation to other fellow human beings.
It is the need to co-exist actively and consciously as a free and happy people
instead of being controlled, dominated, repressed, subdued, suppressed and
marginalised by the tyranny of a small group of people usually coming from
the rich, the powerful, the elitists and the ruthless exploiters,

We are all interdependent upon one another. We don’t live AS an island, though
we are living ON an island. No Man is an Island. Therefore, the exploiters cannot
live without the exploited and vice versa. Capitalists requires workers to help
them to increase their capital and profits. Workers require capitalists to set up
factories for them to work and earn an income to support their families. Based
on interdependent necessity, if Capitalists can control the workers, so also
workers should be able to control the capitalists. But the power of the capitalists
have been recognised, enshrined, enforced by written rules and behind the
scene dealings, while the power of the workers have not been recognised,
enshrined or enforced.

Many governments all over the world are willing to be on the side of the capitalists
for obvious reasons, and therefore either directly or indirectly suppress the
workers for the simple reason that the workers are easy to suppress because
they are very diverse and therefore difficult to be a united force to be reckon with.
That is the reason why trade unionism came about.

In some authoritarian countries trade unionism has been “destroyed” or “bought
over” and therefore became ineffective. Countries like Singapore that give top
priority to making economic growth and material progress the key function of their
existence are putting aside the other aspects of human existence, such as
morality, ethics and freedom of assembly, freedom of speech, freedom of forming
organizations, and freedom to protests against injustice, unfairness and indecent
or contentious laws, rules, regulations and policies. The justification given for
such action is stability. However, as a sensible and thinking human being, we
know that materialism alone cannot provide long-term stability. There is a
need for spiritual, moral and other values to counter-balance the ills that
materialism are bringing about into our society. So the rationale of stability for
economic growth/progress cannot stand. But it however continues to be shaft
down the throats of the powerless majority. Therefore there is a need to
counter or prevent the tyranny of the minority against the majority. That is why
human rights movements arise and picking up speed.

Everything new has a beginning. Thousand years ago, there was no electricity,
telephone, mobile phone, television, spaceship, laser beam, Internet, etc.
Nobody was able to believe in such things as we are having today. But today,
everybody take all of these inventions as second nature – no questions asked.
Why?

Thousand years ago, there was no such a thing as Capitalism but today many
countries, even communist countries, want to embrace capitalism. There was no
Communism, Democracy, Libertarianism, etc. but today these concepts not
only exist but are being practised in one way or another. The same goes for
Human Rights. It is a new concept (though it has been practised long ago in
different and various forms and ways). Any new concept requires time to take
root and be easily accepted as second nature as time goes on.

If there is a collective consciousness, collective wisdom and collective will for
something to happen, THAT SOMETHING will inevitably happen. No single
person nor single organisation can ever hope to prevent it from happening.

However, Rome is not built on one day!

Irony of Tyranny – 13 June, 2008.

Dear Irony of Tyranny,

Well if the next generation is more conscious of Human Rights – then so much the better. This is something that will take many years. We have got to put aside our love for material comfort for higher objectives and causes like Human Rights.
That will take a long time…………..maybe in the next generation if they are imbibed with values that accord great respect for Human Rights.

Dr Syed Alwi on June 13th, 2008 10.23 am Dear Lai CF,

I have to disagree with you. Singaporeans are a well educated lot. They know what Human Rights is. Anyone with an O level cert has some idea of Human Rights.

Its just that their love for material comfort overcomes their conscience on matters concerning Human Rights.

Its materialism alright………..
************************************************************************************
Hi Dr Syed Alwi,

Thanks for the head-up.
It needs to be examined throughout our History.

The Baby-Boomers and 1st generation Singaporeans have no “human rights” as they are immigrants or British Colonial Subjects.

And I can assured you that even “Human Rights” were taught, majority will not understand it as eduaction were geared to produce workers for industries.

And worse, caught between the “Old World of Confucius” and “New World of English Educated”, the young SIngpaoreans did not have the ballast of Religion to steady them, and most of them like me ended up as “Free Thinker”.

CYncial in acceptance of Christainity morals and, and really has no understanding of Confucius Ethics – just grind along to what “is right as taught by parents”.

And therefore, we ended up with TWO generations of Singaporeans in pursuit of “economic success or materialism” and give short shift to “human rights” issues.

After all, they need to fed their fmaily first, and then ‘enjoy th fruits of their labours” isn’t it?

as long as the Social Compact of benevolent “Ruler – Subject” relationship is maintained and everybody benefited like in Roaring 70s and 80s, in a sense, “human righst” is on the backburners.

And evneen if it isi taught in schools, how many students understand “Human Rights” as taught as “Morals & Ethics”?

Or how many discovered Religion and live a “moral life”?

You cannot fault Singaporeans for embracing “materialism” as in the very first palce, they ahve no understanding, or do not seek to understanding, the udnerlying message of “Human Rights”?

Singaporeans embraced Materialism for the simply reason that the Social Compact of “Benevolent Ruler – Subject” works as you can see all around SIngapore,

And of course, benevolent Ruler has an iron fist covered in cotton, and tolerates no opposition to his divine rights to rule a slike Mandate from Heaven.

Now come the Milennials, well educated, well informed, Net-savvy, and imbibed with Western values, centred aorund Christainity Morals and Ethics.

And how many are you? Hundreds or less than a thousands?

Unfortunately to spread the message fo “Human Rights”, to educate Singaporeans, you need the MSM, you need education.

You need publicity and civil organisations to start classes.
Take a leaf from those political organisations in the 50s and 60s, where they ran self-help classes to educate the people in Mandarin lessons, where even adults attended those classes.

The very first step I believe is “Hman Righst 101″ ins econdarys chools and junior colleges and ITE college. perhaps an elective subject only like “Arts Appreciation”.

2nd Step – allow polytechnic and universities to form their oen political parties like SU days – Young Socialist, Young Democrats, young Liberals, Young Anarchists, Young PAP, etc…

3rd step – stop harassing opposition parties when they form their own non-profitable (even funded by foreign sources) classes to teach Singaporeans on their philosophy, political creed and of course, human rights.

4th step – proceed with that liberal arts college. Site htis college at the vacated Natioanl Theatre/van Kleef aquarium, swimming pool complex and SISIR Building at River valley Road,w ith Fort Canning as a rustic park for students to browse, picnic and to develop that “imaginative abilities and creative initiatives”.

And the nearby Singapore River can be develop into a student haunt like Paris left bank and Latin Quarter.

5th step – the hardest of all. Free-up the political scene with PAP forswearing litigation suits as a means of protecting their telfon-coated reputation.

The role fo Chee Soon Juan and SDP in it?

On one side of a coin, a clown, a PAP plant to deride political opposiiton in Singapore, an irritant liek a distraction to benchmark how good PAP is as agaisnt all these clownish poltiicla paprties with their laughable “human rights” issues which will not feed your familes.

On the other side, SDP is sincere and just that, another opposiiton political party , an opportuntist, cleverly feeding on the dissidence of Millennials, chaffing under this status quoa and long for that kind of Western and liberal freedom fo political expression even at teh expense of the economical well-being of Singapore like “I chose Death withotu Freedom, rather Freedom in exchange for Security “.

Onthat Thin Edge of Ucnertainty, perhaps, Chee Soon Juan and SDP si that rough and humble grain of sand, that got into a Oyster; so irritated it that it continuously secreted layer upon a layer to protect itself against this irritation, and the end result is a “Pearl”.
A precious “Pearl” ahrvested by others, in so doing, destroyed the Oyster.

Now, is that PAP is so fearful of Chee Soon Juan because they forsee the end result fo thsi “Pearl of Huamn Righst” that wil destroy t heir cosy oyster of a poltiical world?

I wonder the dearh of “Human rightst” lessons during my time, and during this 21st Century.

I must applaud Oscar Choys’ call for civility in Cyberspace Discussions and Discourses.

As to the Japanese Controlled Era, I have heard about their abusings of their victims from my parents who were victims themselves. I was not born then but me too was a subject of an alien sovereign, the British.

My personal encounters with British troops which did their field trainnings at the village where I was staying were fantastic. As a boy, I confronted some British Soldier once for messing up some vegetables in our farm. He immediate saluted in apology and gave me a pack of his ration as compensation, his fellow mate did likewise.

Under the British Rule, we had free medical/healthcares including hospitalization, medicines and transportations in cases in cases of accidents. Education was as good as free and even privately run public Chinese, Malay and Indian Schools charged only nominally. Teachers and principals visiting students’ homes to relate themselves to students’ parents and backgrounds were frequent. Where I stayed, there were no less than 8 Primary schools within three kilometres.

Public Transportations were very affordable and there were attendants(ticket sellers) in every bus. Neighbours with cars occassionally gave lifts to neighbours and even announced his trips to town just that neighbours could get a lift and go town shopping with him and sometimes his family. Many married women were not employed, traditionally, most are fulltime housewives, but many did some farmings as land were mostly unoccupied at where I stayed, a village in the East.

There were some womanfolks whose husbands died while their many children were still very young, yet many of those ladies were able to singlehandedly brought the children up. How did they manage? Well, in every village there was Maternity Clinics that took care of woman and children medical problems at 50 cents and as said earlier, hospitalization for serious illnesses were absolutely free. Foods were plentiful and fresh from own farms and in my village, fishermen used to bring ‘ikan parang’ with hooks in the mouths that gasped for air.

A ‘kampong’ policeman made his daily rounds on a bicycle and the villagers hardly bothered him. Most disputes are usually settled by village elders except criminal cases. The ‘Kampong Spirit’ or camaraderies was so good that when a road needed repair, everyone in the village will play their parts.

Living was simple, in my case, the first six years of my life, I lived in a large attap house with the bare ground as floor and cheap wooden planks as partitions. There were no power supply and a common waterpipe for everbody to use(free), was about a kilometre away. Most of us had wells, oil and pressure lanterns as our sources of lights.

Despite the simple living, most of us were happy, as living was carefree, there was hardly much interferences from the Authority and though very poor, one can see from the above descriptions, most problems were overcame because of the welfares provided by the British Rulers and the spirit of camaraderies. And for those working for British Forces, they are still collecting their pensions today. A friend of mine was recently invited to the British High Commission to celebrate(for a send off).

Life for me took a bad turn when my family was resettled but my life never got settled, it is my fault for I can never erase the life I had in the village. THERE ARE SIMPLY TOO MUCH CONTROL OVER OUR LIVE BY OUR RULERS. But I will not pack and go as suggested by Oscar Choy.

patriot.

The difference is some people believe it is a human right to insult others.

I agree with ur essay. but the real question is how many are actually ready to challenge these things you mentioned in ur essay. Could fear influence these decisions?

‘Human rights’ is something foreign to Singapore. It ought not to be, but it is because Singaporeans allow it to be. I worry about rights like freedom of speech and assembly, though, because I think these rights are open to abuse, but I think there are rights more important, such as what is informally (informal, but more important than other rights) known as the ‘right to life’ (especially, if not only in, cases where drug trafficking is taken as a capital offence) and the right to privacy; the right to defend oneself against all misuse of civil apparatus.