Leong Sze Hian / Columnist
I refer to Dr Chee Soon Juan’s response to the Minister of Law’s remarks in conjunction with the opening of the legal year, that Singaporeans should not protest against the laws of Singapore.
How do we strike the right balance to Dr Chee’s call for more civil and political rights in Singapore?
Can limitations be applied to Universal Human Rights?
Article 29 (2) of the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), makes provision for the limitation of the Rights enshrined in the UDHR.
How do we objectively evaluate whether the limitation of rights is justifiable?
Some principles that may be considered are :-
How necessary is the limitation?
Is the limitation “out of proportion” in the context of the extensiveness of the limitation?
Is it for a legitimate purpose?
For example, in the case of say Freedom of Speech and Expression, will freedom of speech and expression lead to violence? Is it a peaceful advocacy of rights? (How necessary?)
Does the limitation result in almost a total silencing of the masses - whether by intention, perception or self-censorship? (How proportional?)
To what extent is the intention or purpose to undermine the development or curtailment of democracy? (How legitimate is the purpose?)
Perhaps the key words in article 29 (2), is “in a democratic society”.
Where a society (country) is generally deemed or viewed by others as not being “a democratic society”, then, the application of article 29 (2) may demand much greater scrutiny.
In addition, the UDR should be viewed not just in its original form in 1948 when the declaration was made, but in the context of developments in the last 60 years, such as the International Conventions, like the ICCPR (International Convention on Civil and Political Rights).
Human Rights is not about particularity versus universality, but rather the universal need for everyone to respect humanity in a peaceful manner.
What we must never allow is the use of rights and their interpretation to incite violence and unrest in the name of democracy.
———
Hi Mr Leong,
“For example, in the case of say Freedom of Speech and Expression, will freedom of speech and expression lead to violence? Is it a peaceful advocacy of rights? (How necessary?)”
Even in a country with limited freedom of speech, VIOLENCE is commited every now and then:
1. uncle punched p of the m.
2. uncle set fire on p of the m.
in conclusion, violence is not from freedom of speech.
i thank you for your article.
Billibanjaero,
Violence is not from freedom of speech. It arises from freedom of expression. Peaceful advocacy of rights must still come with a punch even if the punch is not through violent means, such as commercial epsionage.
Violence arises not from freedom of speech or expression. Violence arises when freedom of speech and expression is not allowed. So by curbing this freedom produces exactly the undesired effect.
“We reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals”
I think all too often, in Singapore and in the broader Asia, we are made to believe that our peace and prosperity has to come at the expense of diversity and dissent.
With all patriotic love and respect, I beg to differ.
One can see the power of freedom of speech and expression.
The minibomb victims, particularly the old and the uneducated folks, lost their voice. Their MPs all silent in parliament. The RP leaders openly said they were greedy and had invested with their eyes open.
Where did they re-gain their voice? Through Tan KL’s effort to gather them in Hong Lim Park to protest. Such protest and its publicity did wonders to put pressure on the authority to act fast. Just think – if HLP is not available as a legal venue, there is really no place to hold protest “legally”.
Whether credit is due or not to the RP for opening up HLP for Speakers is a separate issue.