[...] Choice, a place for my Voice – TOC: Singapore does uphold human rights’ norms – TOC: U60 launches human rights anniversary celebrations – Siew Kum Hong: Speech at media launch [...]

Recall what happened a few years ago when 2SG Hu died as a result of that now notorious training session … The government’s reaction to the incident was in fact a practical application of the principles of Article 3 UDHR … – Koh Jie Kai

How naive. The incident was leaked to international press and various internet forums first, so as to force the Singapore government to go public about the affair.

What’s the purpose of this article?

How about discussing rights for workers, women, child labour, activists, opposition politicians?

Singapore doesn’t use crude tools like torture. Just think of the subtle (and not-so-subtle) ways they apply pressure: defamation suits, police registration, licensing laws, “OB markers”, cosy tripartite partnerships etc.

Singaporeans are uncomfortable discussing human rights issue precisely because of the uncompromising stance by the government throughout these years.

I’m not sure what norms you are referring to, but let’s strive to be best in class for this.

the Singapore government does not violate Article 17(2) of the UDHR, which tells us that no one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his (or her) property.

Our properties, most of which were built as early as the 60’s have yet to reach the 99 leasehold mark. When it does in less than 50 year’s time, I believe we will then see if this violation will be the order of the day.

the government DID NOT commit human rights abuses like arbitrary or unlawful killings. It failed to hold any political prisoners. Torture and inhumane treatment are not approved methods of police interrogation, in practice are hardly ever used, and police officers who ill treat detainees can expect to be charged in court. Nowadays, unhappy citizens can even take to the parks to protest. And so on.

We are talking about human rights norms, not extreme cases of human rights abuse. Sure, you don’t hold political prisoners but you sure have a way to criminalize them and hold them in our prison.

many others insist that our practice of “asian values” ( whatever that means), also means that our human rights standards must also be Uniquely Singaporean. .

I think you meant to say Uniquely PAP.

much of the debate over human rights standards (or lack thereof) in the Singapore context takes place over issues such as the right to freedom of speech, or of association. And even then the debate is about the extent of those rights, …

And it is the blatant abuse of this that sets the standard for all the other aspects of human rights abuse in Singapore. Forget about the extent of it. We cannot even begin to take the first step.

For the record, I think our human rights’ issues scored poorly in ranking when polled by the international human rights group.

To me, human rights refer to:

1. Ability to speak freely without prejudice

2. Ability to demonstrate freely without restraint

3. Ability to have a wholly free media without govt interference

4. Ability to have my civil rights when called upon by the court of law – one free call and access to legal rights before interrogation

5. Ability to vote freely without fear or harassment

6.Ability to gain employment based on merit and not age, gender or race

7. Ability to worship and adopt any religion freely

8. Ability to have access to basic amenities

9. Ability to pursue wholesome activities freely

10.Ability to move around freely in my own country.

That’s all for the time being.

Hi Gilbert,

I think there are some hot spots in your wish list.

a. Ability to demonstrate freely without restraint – there must be some restraint in our multi-racial and multi-cultural composition but these restraints must be clearly spelt out and inderstood by all without prejudice.

b. Ability to vote freely without fear or harassment – It should be the ability to vote freely without fear or threats that results in fear. Very simply, unimpeded voting.

c. Ability to gain employment based on merit and not age, gender or race – should I add ‘citizens first over foreign workers?”.

Other than these, good list. Well done.

We don’t really need all the colourful wrappings like the ones in this article to package a rotten bunch of eggs.

b. Ability to vote freely without fear or harassment – It should be the ability to vote freely without fear or threats that results in fear. Very simply, unimpeded voting. – gemami (#6)

I remember Goh Chok Tong threatened the residents of Cheng San GRC during GE 1997 that if they do not vote for PAP, PAP will withhold upgrade for their HDB flats. However, isn’t the monthly SC&C fees that HDB residents pay to Town Council meant for cyclical maintenance and long-term maintenance such as HDB upgrades?

aiyoyo

thought oil now <= 60usd/barrel???

why we still pay at ~93usd/barrel Jan2009???

aiyoyo

“Electricity tariff reduced by nearly 24.7% for first quarter of 2009
By Channel NewsAsia | Posted: 04 December 2008 1242 hrs

SINGAPORE: The electricity tariff for households will be reduced by 24.7 per cent to 22.93 cents from January 1 to March 31 next year.

SP Services said that on average, the tariff for all customer categories will be down by 24.9 per cent due to lower fuel oil prices.

It added that for the first quarter of next year, tariffs are pegged to a lower forward fuel oil price of S$92.99 per barrel, which is 40 per cent lower than that of S$155.14 per barrel for the current quarter.

The electricity tariff is reviewed quarterly. “

imagine if people had not spoken about the falling oil price……

Human rights means it is alright to be human, anything else is punishable by death, eg being a pig, a cow, a frog, a chicken or a rat. They have no rights and thus end up on our plates. Plants have no rights too. What about aliens from outer space?

Got to pardon me, for I only do my best not to break the Laws that I know and I do not know. I have always wanted to be respected as a human, an animal to be precise, like a bird, flies any direction, anywhere, any height at any speed and land anywhere I want except the volcanoes and cages; yes cages. I will take cares to avoid collisions of course.

What are cages? Contraption made by man to deprive the freedoms of other living beings. And cages exist invisibly, believe me.

Out of curiosity, I really like to know if conscription is not against Human Rights and if it is, is the poor(little) allowances paid to conscripts result in another act against Human Rights? And if both violate Human Rights, what is the recourse?

If my query sounds silly, do forgive please.

patriot

Almost 6 months ago, when I first bump into TOC doing my googling on UDHR declaration, one of the very first few comments that I had posted in TOC Tribute to UDHR week in Ng En Jay’s article on “Singapore needs Human Rights”,…

Comments edited by moderator.
Observer, apologies but please do not re-post entire blog postings here in the comments section. You can provide a url link to the blog post, however. Thanks.

Oh, by the way, the last count of vote on how citizenry view Human Rights as a critical issue in TOC or in Singapore as a matter of fact. Only 163 total votes taken. No surpise to me that the previous article on the announcement of Human Rights 60th annual event received only 10 comments with 270 views.

You see thousands upon thousands of views in all other issues (mainly concerning monetary issues or bread and butter issues) and comments are flying in at light year speed for some. Even frivilous issue got more attention than HR issues. How sad can this be? How reflective is this as a nation?

Here’s solid evidence that TOC has been infiltrated by the establishment.

13) Observer

Hi I agreed with you that humans rights issue is an important topic for all Singaporeans but where do we start?

So far, I feel that that we do not have any groups advocating for human rights except for TOC now.

We always associated human rights problem with China, Somalia or N Korea but I feel that prdinary Singaporeans are so ignorant about such topics maybe due to our politically apathetic nature.

We only care if we have food on the table, money to pay our bills and a reasonably well paid job. The rest we tend to left to the govt to our detriment.

After 4 decades, we realised that our govt may not be that transparent and efficient as claimed. Is this a violation of human rights? I think so.

To me, human rights mean transparency. Human rights mean that we have the right to ask and question when things are not going the way it should be. Communist countries like China and N Korea do not have this facility as everything is dictated by the state. Yet, we see a very prosperous and forward looking china these days. Of course, their human rights record is still very far behind that of European countries. Nevertheless, sometimes I feel that we are like a communist country without any way out when things go awry with our govt.

This is certainly a grave and serious issue.

And do you know what is worse than a communist country?
A communist country that prides itself on being the model for democracy.

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. This form of punishing acts should not be encouraged, 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 next of kin 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!

I have also posted the above at the end of the UDHR week 6 months ago and I would like to extend the list here:

9) To my fellow Singaporeans, let’s learn to be a little more considerate, tolerence, less consdecending and exercise a little more receptiveness towards fellow mates that are less fortunate, different in lifestyle practice, people in dire situation. Give them your care and warmth. Offer your shoulder for them to lean on when needed and your ears for them to share their fear and anxiety.

10) To the governing party, please be more in touch with the ground and listen to (US) the citzenry more. Do the right thing to save this nation before she falls apart (i.e. invest in your very own people ~ us). We do not want to ask to you go “suck an egg”.

13) Observer

I think we should draw a distinction between human rights and rights that we have as a Singaporean citizen under the Constitution. They don’t always overlap. But I agree that there is definitely a need to de-mystify BOTH sets of rights for the average Singaporean.

The NUS Pro Bono Group in the Law Faculty already tries to do this with some of their programs and U60 has produced some flyers (with the PBG’s help) of the UDHR in simple English.. we hope to disseminate them at our events. If anyone wants one, I’ll find some way to get it to you or you can check it out here – http://www.un.org/cyberschoolbus/humanrights/resources/plain.asp

All that being said, it IS very difficult to reach out to the average Singaporean and correct me if I’m wrong, but I don’t think any of us online has a good idea of what the average Singaporean thinks about human rights. Language is a barrier, the reach of online media to our Chinese/Malay/Tamil speaking uncles and aunties is a barrier, let’s not even get started on the MSM. I’d love to go to HDB Hub and hold an human rights debate in Chinese, but of course I have no money to do something like that.

At the same time, I also feel that not enough has been done by civil society to make human rights relevant to the average Singaporean. Partly cos civil society doesn’t really use rights-based language in their work and partly cos they’re severely strapped by lack of manpower and money. Where is the value-add in adopting rights-based approaches in our everyday lives? We all know that it’s important in our heads.

So, anyone have any suggestions? I’m really passionate about giving people space to talk about human rights but I’m not sure how to go about it.

>>15) Gilbert Goh
So far, I feel that that we do not have any groups advocating for human rights except for TOC now.<<

Check these out, and get involved:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DUbuJPYZJqY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gC8oEuAW1zQ
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1hIxLHoyylA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PFlENeTb56E
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XxWqcVuQOyA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L9apErmC748&NR=1

Dear June #17

Apparently, you are a firm believer in human rights being inalienable, universal and natural.

However, such absolute adjectives ascribed to human rights are bound to impair their promotion, simply because there are many other competing priorities that are indispensable to a nation’s survival and welfare.

If my human rights are inalienable, then they are non-negotiable. If they are universal, then everyone has the same non-negotiable rights even when they encroach on each other. Further, if they are natural, there is no need to justify them and no law in any country can negate it. Can you see that this is a sure-fire way to conflict and disorder?

Therefore, in the final analysis, there can only be provisions for human rights under the law – they are not entitlements regardless of our laws!

Dear June,

Thanks for the annexure document. Run through it. Laudable effort and may be can get someone to help translate it into Mandarin, Tamil and Malay to be distributed. I believe there should be volunteers around to help. It is at least a little small step we can take to raise the level of awareness.

Without a doubt, talking to Singaporeans to give them a better conception of their Rights is already a mounting task let alone deciphering to HDB uncles and aunties. It is a big challenge indeed and will take enormous amount of effort and time. I think, enough volunteers have to be garnered to get this done (if ever it will take off to begin with).

Would it be good if the translated “layman” HR to be sent to Corporations or Companies that has a registered website via email or by postal mail to help spread the cause? I think funds can be raised by organizing event (like this coming Saturday at HLP gathering organized by TOC) to get donations from participants (legally). Just a “naive” thought for consideration.

I do have a few queries on the 30 listed simplified version of HR mentioned.

Item 19 & 20 there are grey areas embedded.

Item 19 is with regard of absolute Freedom of Speech and Expression (I think). Item 20 albeit rules in Singapore had opened up slightly (a small progress) but nevertheless that is with in confined area. Hopefully, these two items can be lifted further as time progresses.

Item 24 is an issue with foreign maids. I often heard horror stories about abuses and I sincerely hope that people who hire maids do treat them with dignity and do not abuse them. They are not employed to do your car wash or to work like slave. Have a little respect for your fellow human kind please.

Item 25; It is sad to note that there are untold stories of our very own fellow Singaporeans who are less fortunate and are in dire straits and are not only frown upon by some fellow well-off citizens, the authorities are not of good help without much bureaucratic strings attached. The price hike in the last few years had almost but allow the people to find an affordable (government subsidized) flat. This needs redressing and the government is certainly capable of re-instating the original intent of HDB housing policies when it was first created decades ago.

Hi June,

For a start, the week-long events of U60 is a big step forward. I have never heard of such events before in my life of 40 odd years so I guess we are progressing ahead.

I believe there are international events for human rights groups. They meet for their own conventions and I think it is good to go for it. Sad to say, our own govt does not provide funding for such interest groups. In Australia, many interest groups such as environmentalist, animal welfare and anti-spousal violence groups have funds for interest groups to flourish and grow. They are treated with respect.

They are also invited to discussion sessions with the govt if the issues coincide with the groups’ interest. Their views are often respected by the govt.

Groups like yours can contribute actively to the society by regularly writing in to press though of course they may choose to publish it or not. You can write either to the ST forum or features’ column which are open to public contribution. To gain a following to your cause, MSM needs to be on your side or else it is tough to reach out to the public.

A good website sure helps here as nowadays many of us are connected web-wise than anything. I am unsure whether you have a website here.

I am afriad that the aunties and ah chek here won’t be keen on such topics. They belong to the era whereby they only care about a roof over their head and three simple meals on the table daily. Such topics may interest those who are better educated and maybe the post-65ers. Many may be even educated abroad.

As human rights issues still have a mystifying effect on the population, many may shy away from speaking on such topic. Our ISA and overbearing govt ethics do not help the sitation at all here. Kudos to you for initiating such a movement. I respect you and your team.

I hope the weekend event will have a carnival spirit to it so that people will not associate the forum with a solemn and stifling atmosphere as is often suggested.

Human rights simply mean having one’s basic rights of a human being who are living in harmony together with one another. It need not be complicating.

20) smallvoice585

While I agree that there are many competing priorities that are indispensable to a nation’s survival and welfare, I don’t agree that absolute adjectives ascribed to human rights will impair their promotion. The philosophical idea behind human rights is that all men & women are equal and are entitled to dignity.. and that’s where the idea of natural, universal and inalienable human rights comes from. I don’t think any of us would dispute the philosophical idea behind human rights. We therefore shouldn’t be afraid to say that everyone is entitled to human rights and no one should be denied their human rights by their government or by any other person in absolute terms.

But what I think you’re getting at is the conflict btw the exercise of rights and freedoms of individuals and duties to the community.. which is the next step after recognizing that human rights are universal and inalienable. I.e. “How do we exercise our rights in a way that will take into account everyone else’s exercise of their rights and other priorities?”

I think we shouldn’t shy away from human rights because of the conflict between individuals and community, which can’t be helped cos we all live in communities. I might be naive but I believe that it’s just a matter of Singaporeans deciding how they want to resolve the conflict.

Take for example, religious freedom here. We all can practice the religion of our choice but we have to practice our religion responsibly and take care not to offend the religious sensitivities of other people when we speak. That’s how Singapore has decided to balance btw individuals and the community in issues of religion. Then of course there are questions about what is practicing religion responsibly etc. We have to keep refining and working at the areas of conflict instead of blaming the absolute terms of human rights.

I think that’s what you’re getting at… correct me if I’m wrong.

Hi Gilbert,

Thanks for your support, do come down for our events cos we need the support of anyone and everyone we can get :) Website – http://www.u60sg.org

I find it sad that uncles and aunties (actually not just limited to them anymore) are only concerned with bread & butter issues, but they fail to see that these bread & butter issues are linked to their socio-economic rights:

Article 25, UDHR

(1) 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.

(2) Motherhood and childhood are entitled to special care and assistance. All children, whether born in or out of wedlock, shall enjoy the same social protection.

Well, we can only change the world one little step at a time. At the same time, we also need to know that Singaporeans agree with us and that we’re not too out of step with the general population when we talk about human rights.

Any human right in the SAF since 1967?

I am talking about ill-treatment in the SAF. It was rampant and endemic until 1980.

After that it cooled off but it was still carried out.

The greatest innovator of ill treatment and which perfected it to the level of ‘ill-treatment’ artist is MSD or Military Security Department. It carried out covert ill-treatment and covert agression or violence against the family.

It silenced you by means of ‘if you dare reveal anything I will kill you.’ This was said by the head of MSD to me in the presence of his officer-cronies-entourage.

I am still alive and in my late sixties. THE HUNTER CAN BECOME THE HUNTED.

The head and his cronies are now retired and you know what they are doing now – in hiding. They can run but there is nowhere to hide. Singapore is just too small. Circles are small. So and so know so and so and yes yes he lives there.

Where are you? You all were once so mighty and powerful. Scared of being hunted.

At last, we are talking about human rights openly. What a great progress for Singapore -this great country.

Ronnie

“For example, the same people who keep bleating about how we correctly emphasize material prosperity over human rights, would probably be the first to make plenty of noise if the government failed to fairly compensate them for their property if it had to be purchased (sadly not the case in much of rural China).”

For property rights, Although China might be worse relative to Singapore, Singapore does not enforce strong property rights either. Singapore’s laws allow the government to acquire any land for their use whenever they need it, without question (possibly to avoid loopholes).

I don’t know how much those kind of rights (no legal protection, depends on benevolence of the government) matter in other domains, but in the economic analysis that I read, Singapore is rated low on property rights relative to the US and UK, and many problems have been attributed to the lack of property rights.

A general response:

What I was trying to drive at in my article was that Singaporeans already expect, and can enforce many international human rights norms in their lives. No one would claim that we are a beacon of human rights protection, but there is a realistic prospect of these rights being entrenched in our political culture if the general public ( that includes you ), is made more aware that they can expect to enforce certain human rights norms against the government.

There is a big misunderstanding about human rights in general- that people who are for the enforcement of human rights support rights without corresponding duties. The problem is, many major human rights documents do not support this view. National Service for example, would be completely compatible with Article 4 European Convention of Human Rights:

Article 4 – Prohibition of slavery and forced labour

1. No one shall be held in slavery or servitude. 2. No one shall be required to perform forced or compulsory labour. 3. For the purpose of this article the term “forced or compulsory labour” shall not include:

a. any work required to be done in the ordinary course of detention imposed according to the provisions of Article 5 of this Convention or during conditional release from such detention;
b. any service of a military character or, in case of conscientious objectors in countries where they are recognised, service exacted instead of compulsory military service;
c. any service exacted in case of an emergency or calamity threatening the life or well-being of the community;
d. any work or service which forms part of normal civic obligations.

What is disappointing is the response of some people – that is those who claim that the tenor of this article shows that TOC has been infiltrated by the “establishment”. Speaking for myself, this is an unhelpful way of promoting human rights. If liberal sorts are going to have any realistic prospect of entrenching a political culture which accepts that there should be some rights which should be upheld ( like not being tortured or having your property taken away without fair compensation etc), we should be working with people who would otherwise have an instinctive suspicion of us. There needs to be some common ground on the issue of human rights, because you cannot realistically hope to enforce human rights, if most people have not been persuaded that human rights protections are quite important to their lives.

And do you know what is worse than a communist country?
A communist country that prides itself on being the model for democracy.

how about a dictatorship masquerading as a democracy and denouncing communism?

Jiekai-
National Service for example, would be completely compatible with Article 4 European Convention of Human Rights:

Article 4 – Prohibition of slavery and forced labour

1. No one shall be held in slavery or servitude. 2. No one shall be required to perform forced or compulsory labour. 3. For the purpose of this article the term “forced or compulsory labour” shall not include:

a. any work required to be done in the ordinary course of detention imposed according to the provisions of Article 5 of this Convention or during conditional release from such detention;
b. any service of a military character or, in case of conscientious objectors in countries where they are recognised, service exacted instead of compulsory military service;

sorry? what do conscientious objectors get in Singapore again? Do you have any idea? Its three years of imprisonment for you. Any form of service exacted. NO. and by and large, very very few countries in EU has conscription, which is frequently being argued against. Can you argue that in Singapore?

“no one is seriously suggesting for example, that torture is suitable for use as part of police questioning procedure, or that we should not allow people charged with a crime to be represented by a lawyer.”

just because they don’t announce they mistreat suspects doesn’t mean they don’t. just ask those who’ve gone into police lock-ups before. I don’t think it is a hotel in there. As for your second point, ISA?detention without trial? never happened before? :)

hi patriot,

“Got to pardon me, for I only do my best not to break the Laws that I know and I do not know. I have always wanted to be respected as a human, an animal to be precise, like a bird, flies any direction, anywhere, any height at any speed and land anywhere I want except the volcanoes and cages; yes cages. I will take cares to avoid collisions of course.

What are cages? Contraption made by man to deprive the freedoms of other living beings. And cages exist invisibly, believe me.

Out of curiosity, I really like to know if conscription is not against Human Rights and if it is, is the poor(little) allowances paid to conscripts result in another act against Human Rights? And if both violate Human Rights, what is the recourse?

If my query sounds silly, do forgive please.”

i have answered your query in one of my blog entries. =) I do not know of any recourse to be honest, if singaporeans are not allowed to protest or anything. perhaps you have suggestions? =)

Dear June #23,

The main thrust of my argument is that the whole human rights movement is untenable because:

(1) It merely describes a philosophical ideal which is not useful as it is far removed from the everyday reality that we experience.

(2) Its assertion that human rights are natural is at best unproven.

(3) Its intention to prescribe a universal set of basic rights for all nations and all peoples is misguided. Its inability to transcend different cultures, philosophies, language, history, traditions, political systems, religious beliefs, etc, would render such a single set of recommendations unworkable.

(4) It has unresolvable internal self-contradictions. By championing, e.g., rights to freedom of expression, right to work or right to education, the holders of such rights will encroach on the rights of others, especially if such rights are inalienable. This goes beyond the oft-stated conflict between individual rights and community rights and between the degree of freedom and the level of responsibility. You wish to preserve the absolute terms in the human rights you desire, yet you advise that we should refine them continuously! (Can absolutes be refined? Or should I say – after refinement, are absolutes still absolutes?)

(5) It is redundant. It may surprise you – the conflicts between individual, community and national rights and interests are already resolved! Or should I say they are continuously being resolved everywhere and in every country in their own way. The result of such resolutions are in fact the pre-existing civil and political rights as guaranteed by the various national constitutions and laws!

I hope we can exercise more discernment before expending any energy in promoting the cause of the human rights movement.

Hi dear me;

I am grateful that You are the only one to address me directly on the Issue(of Human Rights), I am touched.

As I had repeatedly said and kind of should not repeat it here, but for this issue, I like to repeat it one more time. I am lowly educated AND THERE ARE MANY WORSE THAN ME, that is they are even LESS EDUCATED. Human Rights we say and Human Rights we want and I personally want my Rights to be fully respected. Do I get them?

AND,

when conscription took place in the 60s, I began to ponder the Question of Rights.
Maybe, I am just born to dislike soldiering because I just dislike violence and having to undergo two racial riots, violence was plain stupid to me. But National Service was waiting for me and no matter how much I disliked or hated it, I had to do it, I felt violated. BUT TO AVOID TROUBLE FOR MY FAMILY MORE THAN FOR MYSELF, I VIOLATED MY OWN PRINCIPLE AND COMPLETED MY CONSCRIPTION. THE WORD CONSCRIPTION IS SUCK TO ME TILL THIS DATE AND MAYBE FOREVER.

Fellow Humans, this a tough complex subject, it is RIGHTS that we are talking about NOT FREEDOM. Let me give an idea of what I think is Rights and I will start with the beginning of life. The Right to grow means ones’ food intakes, including water, air and supplies should not be denied by any reason. The Right to shelter should not be denied. The Right to self protection should not be denied. The Right to knowledge should not be denied. The Right to be free from force should not be denied The Right to love(emotion) should not be denied. The Right to ones’ choice of mate should not be denied(subject to reasonable opposition). These are inalienable Rights that I could think of. However, I would like to emphasize that all these Rights must not violate the Rights of others, example to steal food from others.

The Right to shelter will be a highly controversial one in a highly and overly regulated society like Singapore. A homeless Singaporean is unlikely to get shelter without violating existing regulations if sleeping in parks and public places are considered offences. Where can a homeless Singaporean seek shelter may I ask?

Freedom is a different kettle of fish to me, again it is a very complicated issue.
Freedom cannot be interpreted to mean free to do anything, anyhow and anyway one chooses and Freedom is not itself a Right. Freedom is what is acceptable to other fellow beings and the society one is in.

One thing is clear to me and that is there used to have Corporate Social Responsibility and I had a few lessons in this Subject when I was attending trainnings at an American International Company in the Late 60s. The Volume of the text itself was about the size of a Chambers Twentieth Century Dictionary. After the 80s, I am not aware of any organization practising the ‘obligation’. Worse, there seems much violation of its’ ideology.

The many Rights that we are discussing were mooted long ago and International Organizations were formed around them. What have these organization done all these years? For that matter, WHAT HAVE OUR JUDICIARY/LEGAL BODIES AND LAW SOCIETY DONE FOR HUMAN RIGHTS, CITIZENS RIGHTS, NATURAL RIGHTS AND INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS ETC???.

Lastly, please tell me, how are illiterates and the mentally handicaps to understand their Rights ?

HAVE JUSTICE BEEN DONE TO ALL THE RIGHTS.

As I have said, I do my best to avoid offences BUT do I know all the Laws and Rights? Without having to think, I can give the answer.

I DON’T, I DO NOT.

Yoursfaithfully: patriot

For a start, the government DID NOT commit human rights abuses like arbitrary or unlawful killings. It failed to hold any political prisoners. Torture and inhumane treatment are not approved methods of police interrogation, in practice are hardly ever used, and police officers who ill treat detainees can expect to be charged in court. – Koh Jie Kai

What about ISA detainees? Said Zahari was detained under the Singapore’s ISA for 17 years. He was abused, denied legal counsel and then exiled from Singapore upon release. He is currently a PR in Malaysia. The government committed human rights abuses, but it didn’t break any law which they themselves made.

hi patriot, no problem.

to me, freedom is as expansive or as limited, no matter what you call it, as long as it does not infringe on the basic rights of other people. my freedom of assembly should not infringe on your freedom of thought. likewise, i believe that the sole idea of conscription is a gross violation of many human rights, as I have written.

I have no idea about the judiciary, except that they have tried to uphold existing laws. but they also have put brakes on reforming the currently flawed laws. they must take the blame for this.

for the illiterates and mentally handicaps to understand their rights(within capability of course), we need to ensure that they are represented, and their rights properly safeguarded. for the many illiterates, the challenge now is survival and not rights. to be frank, i do not fault them for this, pragmatism steps in. what i do believe is that society has a duty to help them survive, and help them understand their rights, and help them when their rights are violated. we do not stand aside when we see that their rights are violated, and we sure as hell do not violate their rights to elevate ours.

i would not have answered your questions i feel. this is just my personal opinion. =)

30) smallvoice585

(1) I don’t think human rights are far removed from everyday living. It sets standards for us to check ourselves with or to aspire to if we’re not there yet. How is the right to marry not useful or far removed from everyday living? Case in point – the 18year old girl that went to court recently to get the court’s approval to get married, she was realizing her right to marry. How is freedom of expression far removed from everyday living? I like Prof Thio’s recent quote: ‘(In Singapore) the idea is that economics must come first. No point having free speech if your rice bowl is empty. But I disagree, because if my rice bowl is empty, I would like to say that I am hungry,’ If you get to say you’re hungry and the government changes its economic policies, then isn’t that quite useful cos you get to eat?

(2) Can’t really comment too much on the philosophy behind human rights because I don’t think I’m qualified enough to talk about it.

(3) Although we may come from different backgrounds, I think there are many points of commonality. We can all agree that we should treat each other with a spirit of brotherhood, that we have a right to rest and leisure and that we have a right to fair trial. I won’t go through it all but even historically, the UDHR wasn’t an instrument that was created by the West. There were contributions from Latin America and China, and a lot of the initial recommendations were tossed out cos some cultures had certain rights that they valued which other cultures didn’t. So the single set that we see today is really a set of 30 Articles that reflect the commonality of people from different backgrounds. But I can agree that different cultures do dispute the interpretation or the extent of application of each right.

(4) I don’t propose refining the absolutes because you’re right, they wouldn’t be absolutes if they were refined. But I do propose is refining the way we interpret these absolutes while not losing sight of the absolute itself.

How I see human rights in practice – we make the things we can agree on absolute e.g. the right to education, we can all agree that giving children education is one of the best ways for them to achieve a better life for themselves. And then we refine the interpretation / exercise of these rights to suit our different societies, e.g. we may not be able to afford compulsory primary education now which may be the best way to realize our right to education, but let’s introduce it in stages. But in the process of refining, we should not insert so many exceptions and qualifications that we lose sight of the basic point upon which we agreed.

(5) I don’t think that the conflict btw individual and community is already resolved, I see it as a continual process that Singaporeans must play a part in as citizens and as human beings. If it were resolved, then no one would be so upset about the government not giving enough social assistance to the poor here or the ISA! You can’t say that the resolution has already been embodied in law since the ISA isn’t abolished and there are still lots of people who are upset at the idea that you can be detained without trial in violation of human rights. But if you’re trying to say that there is resolution cos not enough Singaporeans are speaking up loudly enough or don’t care enough to have an opinion on things that affect them, well then that’s a really sad state of affairs!

Dear June #34,

I appreciate your enthusiasm for social activism and I encourage you to further your involvement in worthy causes. However, I do worry that your enthusiasm may be misplaced in this case.

I know of some people who get involved in the fight for human rights and democracy with only a superficial understanding of their implications, but they do so because of the prestige attached to these movements. I believe that you are not one of them. So please be reassured that I do treat you with much respect.

But allow me to counter some of your points:

(1) The ideals preached by the Human Rights Movement is not being realised anywhere in the world. Even in Western Europe and America, there are large swathes of people who are disadvantaged, discriminated or subjected to deprivation and poverty. It sounds rather empty if the ideals promoted are meant to be applicable universally – that is, to every human being. Remember, this movement is not to persuade governments to better provide for their citizens, but to sell the idea that such ideals are RIGHTS or ENTITLEMENTS owed to individuals for no other reason other than the fact that they are human. And such rights are supposed to over-ride all existing national laws and cultural norms. Is this tenable?

(2) To your quotation of Prof Thio’s speech where she said that “if my rice bowl is empty, I would like to say that I am hungry”, may I ask you what’s the use of merely saying so? Is it to gain sympathy or pity? And hope that the government changes its economic policies to fill that empty rice bowl? Is that the purpose of having freedom of expression or speech? Merely, for assuring one’s material satisfactions? Or should freedom of speech rather be used by responsible citizens in their quest for social justice?

(3) You said – “I don’t propose refining the absolutes because you’re right, they wouldn’t be absolutes if they were refined. But I do propose is refining the way we interpret these absolutes while not losing sight of the absolute itself.”

I really don’t quite understand what you’re saying, and I hope such obscurantism is unintentional. “Absolute” means “complete or utter”. If you “interpret” these absolutes like terrorists interpret religious texts for their own agenda, I am apalled! Seriously, interpretations are dangerous things as everyone has their own interpretations.

(4) Lastly, let me clarify what I meant by “resolution of conflicts”. It does not mean full realisation of ideals and everybody is happy – this is unattainable. It is an ever evolving state of conciliation between competing wants and demands that would satisfy most people at a given time.

Best regards!

15) Gilbert Goh: “Nevertheless, sometimes I feel that we are like a communist country without any way out when things go awry with our govt. This is certainly a grave and serious issue.”

Can’t agree enough with Gilbert’s view.

All human rights in SG will be wiped out when the prevailing govt is doing the wrong thing. There is no way to check it or stop it. There is also no plausible alternative govt. We are in a dire situation.

June #34 on “Prof Thio’s recent quote: ‘…No point having free speech if your rice bowl is empty. But I disagree, because if my rice bowl is empty, I would like to say that I am hungry,’..”

Well, we have been saying many things but is the gahmen listening? If not then how?

Human rights is something you have or you don’t have. There is no such thing as achieving a middle ground for establishing one’s human rights.

More general comments..

1- Nobody expects the ideals of human rights to be fulfilled perfectly anywhere in the world. Not even in rich countries. We live on planet Earth, not heaven.

2- Even so, that doesn’t mean that human rights are irrelevant. Working towards achieving them is a worthy cause.

3- Obviously some rights are incompatible with others. A right to freedom of religion may be curtailed if it contradicts some other human rights, like a right to life- that’s why most societies ban human sacrifice in the name of religion, for example.

But every democratic society has to tackle these issues for themselves, and no one is suggesting that there is, or can be, a “one size fits all” solution to many cases less clear cut than the human sacrifice example I gave above.

4- In addition, most working human rights codes also recognise that there may be some reasonable limits on some rights.

5- June might have made herself clearer on “absolutes”. What she is saying is this. Let’s take a pretty important right found on many human rights documents/parts of national constitutions- the right against cruel and unusual punishment. Some practices are very clearly “cruel and unusual punishment”, like pulling out people’s fingernails. Other practices are less obviously cruel and unusual punishment to some people, like caning in Singapore prisons.

In the face of interpreting a phrase like “cruel and unusual punishment”, what should a court do if it is asked the question of whether or not caning is such a practice? Courts do not just throw up their hands in the air and say “well, geez, there are differing reasoned opinions for and against this practice, and we’ll just not come to a decision”. They have to come to a decision based on some reasoning as to why they are more convinced one way or the other, so long as they keep sight of the general goal of not endorsing punishment which is cruel and unusual.

Looked at it in this way, June’s statement about absolutes can be much better understood.

This also brings up another point about “interpretations”. They are not necessarily a bad thing. Just because some interpretations on some issues have bad or undesirable results ( e.g. divinely inspired terrorists), does not mean that we should therefore not interpret.

In the context of legal decision making, interpretation is an absolutely crucial process in assisting judges in deciding whether a reading of a text is in line with tenor of the existing body of law. Contrary to popular belief
lawyers do not generally make their own interpretations of the law out of thin air (unless they are judges from the EU’s European Court of Justice, which rules on mostly economic issues in the Common Market, but I digress…). They rely on previously decided cases which are similar, or they look at analogous arguments in other areas of the law, and so on and so forth. Needless to say, there’s a lot of stuff over which there is little controversy, but others which there is a lot! There is a lot of argument about how lawyers should interpret legal texts, but that’s a jurisprudential issue ( er, legal philosophy), which I don’t think many readers of this blog would really want to spend their time reading.

Hi all;

Human Rights must be made simple for all to understand as it is fundamental to all humans. Non alienable Human Rights are to be accorded to all Human Beings irrespective of their races, ethnicities, colours, languages, creeds and religions.

It is sacrosanct that humans do not be impeded from living their live free from unreasonable interference and force.

If everyone is to know and understand their Rights through a tertiary education or a formal lesson to know his/her Rights, then I am afraid the Rights will never come.

Let us ask the ULTIMATE QUESTION. WHO HAS THE AUTHORITY(POWER) TO UPHOLD HUMAN RIGHTS?

THE ANSWER:

YOUR RULERS, as the Government, the Prime Duty is to honour Human Rights to his citizens to ensure their wellbeings and welfares for social stability, peace and prosperity. Question is; has your leaders fulfill this duty?

patriot

Dear Jiekai #39,

Thanks for your reply on behalf of June.

I appreciate your efforts in acknowledging that these codes for human rights are merely ideals tempered with some pragmatic limits. As you said so yourself – “every democratic society has to tackle these issues for themselves”. Indeed, responsible governments are fully aware of their duty to ensure fairness and justice for their citizens. In making laws or amending their constitutions, they keep in mind certain moral precepts and principles, but these are subjected to the peculiar demands and constraints of their national interests and circumstances.

What I’m uncomfortable with is the the notion of a trans-national Human Rights Movement that seeks to prescribe and promote “human rights” that are proclaimed to be natural, universal and inalienable and over-rides all national laws and constitutions.

The pronouncements of some of our “human rights” activists also seem to rally our citizens to FIGHT for “human rights” in such a form. This is not helpful.

I consider it my duty to point out to my fellow citizens that it is far more fruitful to participate fully in our political process and ensure that our society provides the best conciliation and compromise between individual, group, community and national interests. But such efforts must be conducted with full respect to our laws and constitution, not to transcend or deny their applicability.