Report and photos by Cerelia Lim
WHEN PEOPLE do not know their human rights, abuse and discrimination steps in, said Ms Natalya Twohill, a speaker at the Whose Right Is It Anyway workshop on 31 October.
The workshop held at AWARE centre saw more than forty people defining what human rights meant to them and understanding the stark differences in rights enjoyed among different groups of people in Singapore.
The event started with four speakers giving their perspectives on human rights.
(Photo: Adult group in discussion)
Ms Twohill, founder of the United Nations Youth Association in Singapore(UNYAS), spoke about her work at the Thailand-Myanmar border, where she and her fellow co-workers introduced a project aimed at giving the Karen Children equal educational opportunities and standards.
“The right to education is part of human rights”. added Ms Twohill, who is a third year Arts and Social Sciences Student at the National University of Singapore.
The second speaker, Mr Alex Au, who owns popular blog Yawning Bread, where he writes regularly about local social and political issues, spoke about the need to understand human rights as a relationship between an individual and the state.
He used two case studies: the extended family hierarchy and the condominium management committee to explain the relationship between our rights and the state.
Contrasting the two scenarios, he said that if we identify ourselves as a member of the family hierarchy, we would ask for permission before doing anything. The condominium management model, however allows us to see ourselves as partners to the committee, and decisions made will be agreed in discussions between us and the management.
The third speaker, Ms Sumi Dhanarajan , a consultant to the Centre on Asia and Globalisation at the NUS Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy, started her speech by asking the audience: “Where do you get your bananas from?”
The audience answered NTUC Fairprice and Malaysia. She then replied by asking them if the bananas come from the Malaysian government.
She drew on that analogy to explain that the products or services we buy are inherently tied to corporations. Human rights are inherently tied to businesses as much as governments should take the lead in upholding them.
Rounding up the panel speeches, Ms Braema Mathi, the ex-president of AWARE, said that just as it is important that we bring to attention human rights abuses that have happened, it would be better if we intervene before it happens. Explaining further, she said that when we see someone being denied of a right, we should not just ask what has happened but also why it happened.
Calling upon the audience to reflect if getting involved in social causes is a lifestyle affair or systematic trend, she said that many youths prefer to pursue their careers first before thinking about what they can do for issues they are passionate about.
She added that passion for social causes should not be an ad-hoc affair; rather it should be seen as part of your life.
The panel speeches were followed by a question-and-answer session.
(Photo: Students from secondary school and junior college discussing)
A secondary school student asked Mr Au if complete freedom of expression is possible in Singapore.
He said yes and explained that the problem only comes when an individual’s freedom of expression affects another person. Elaborating further, he said that the issue with us is that if we curtail our right to say something so much, we end up not saying anything at all.
“If I feel that your house is ugly, I should be able to say that your house is ugly, but that does not mean I should have the right to burn your house because I think that it is ugly.”
Another student, from a junior college, asked Ms Sumi if she meant that human rights should be under the responsibility of private corporations and not the government in her speech.
Ms Dhanarajan then clarified what she meant by outlining the different roles corporations and the government should play.
“Government should protect rights of its people, while companies should respect the rights of their workers.”
After the question-and-answer session, the participants were split into three groups: students from the secondary schools and junior colleges, undergraduates and working adults for break-out sessions.
To allow them to understand that the human rights applies to everyone from all walks of lives, the organisers had the participants take on the roles of different people in society. Some of the roles they took on were: the son of immigrants who run a successful food business, a 71-year-old homeless Karang Guni, and a 22-year-old lesbian.
They were then asked to decide if the identities they have assumed face these situations. Some of the situations were: having adequate social and medical protection for their needs, never encountering any serious financial difficulty and having decent housing with a telephone line and television.
The participants were also asked in their groups to decide which aspects of human rights were the most important to them.
The conclusion was eventually reached that their perception of the most important aspect of human rights is based on their life experiences.
When asked on what they felt about the workshop, a management executive with Singapore Prisons Services Miss Kausar Shaik said, “There are more people in Singapore who are interested in human rights than I thought.”
HELP keep the voice of TOC alive!
If you like this article, please consider a small donation to help theonlinecitizen.com stay alive. Please note that we can only accept donations from Singaporeans. Thank you for your assistance.Do you have a flair for writing? Volunteer with us. Email us your full name and contact details to theonlinecitizen@gmail.com
One ever-perplexing question always linger in my mind, are we entitled to legal representation (i.e. a lawyer to advise on our rights) as a citizen when one is being detained? There are reports on cases that suspects were not allowed audience to their lawyer when investigation to some alleged offences are still on-going.
The fundamental error with the whole human rights movement is that it is one taken from the viewpoint of the individual. The emphasis is on a person’s basic rights to an adequate and dignified life in society.
Trouble starts when everyone demands the satisfaction of his human rights when their fulfillment is beyond the resources of the State or they encroach on other people’s rights or other worthy national objectives.
The whole approach should be turned right around. The State’s duty should be to safeguard the survival, peace and prosperity of the country and in so doing, provide for the basic needs of its citizens.
As much as human rights is about education, it is also about actions.
There is no point talking about human rights when we do not act to protect it. Every time we see the rights of someone taken away, e.g. when SDP members were arrested just by wearing t-shirts with messages and walking along the pavements, every time we just sit there and do nothing, we kill the concept of human rights a little.
A pastor in Nazi Germany (which used to be a democratic country before the Nazi took over) once said :
First they came for the communists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a communist;
Then they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a socialist;
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a trade unionist;
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—because I was not a Jew;
Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak out for me.
If we do not speak out against violations of human rights, then we have no right to claim that right.
The workshop is unfortunately quite irrelevant, as I’d expected considering that the basic human rights in this little red dot is deemed unworthy to be respected.
I agree with btan.
Re: “Another student, from a junior college, asked Ms Sumi if she meant that human rights should be under the responsibility of private corporations and not the government in her speech…Ms Dhanarajan then clarified…“Government should protect rights of its people, while companies should respect the rights of their workers.”
It’s all well and good that ‘companies should respect the rights of their workers’ but experience around the world has already shown that employers rarely if ever voluntarily do so voluntarily; it’s an ideal world scenario.
The sheer number of employers there are, as well as the power imbalance inherent in any employer-employee relationship are daunting enough as it is.
Instead, all over the world, it has been found necessary to legislate workers’ rights before they gain protection in any uniform manner. This also tends to necessitate tribunals – human rights commissions being the most common – that mediate/adjudicate in any employment related dispute.
I look forward to positive development on that front.
To smallvoice585 on November 3rd, 2009 5.15 pm:
1. Re: “Trouble starts when everyone demands the satisfaction of his human rights when their fulfillment is beyond the resources of the State or they encroach on other people’s rights or other worthy national objectives.”
Can you provide specific examples of how this may have happened or might already have happened, especially in – but not confined to – the Singapore context?
2. Re: “The whole approach should be turned right around. The State’s duty should be to safeguard the survival, peace and prosperity of the country and in so doing, provide for the basic needs of its citizens.”
Please elaborate on the approach that you prefer. Please also explain why human rights don’t fall within the ambit of “basic needs” and how they are contradictory to the State’s role of safeguarding the ‘survival, peace and prosperity of the country’.
Thank you.
>>”When asked on what they felt about the workshop, a management executive with Singapore Prisons Services Miss Kausar Shaik said, “There are more people in Singapore who are interested in human rights than I thought.”<<
LOL…just over forty people attended and and it is being interpreted as "'more people in Singapore who are interested in human rights than I thought"??
I supposed more than half of the "over forty people attended" were already supporters and members of AWARE…LOL
Dear 6) Robox,
My 3 paragraphs in post #2 should not be dissected, but should be read together. If so, they will make perfect sense and are actually self-explanatory!
Humans have both the right and the left hands, legs, eyes, ears, nostrils, breasts, testicles, kidneys, etc. Therefore, we should learn from Nature:
The right cannot stand by itself without the left.
What is right must always be balanced by the left.
What is right can only be right after considering what is left.
Human Rights at its’ most fundamental means:-
a) Take good care of me, if you give birth to me.
b) Do not exploit, manipulate, bully, oppress, force and harm me in anyway.
c) Do not prevent me from doing anything that does no harm to others.
d) Do not prevent me from going to anywhere that’s not privately owned.
e) Allow me to breathe and drink freely whatever Nature provides that are not produce and or owned by other people.
f) That I shall be taken care off by the State when natural calamity occurs and that I will not be discriminated.
The above are just some of the basic conditions which I, as a human, wishes and therefore should be entitled to without any hindrance from other humans.
They are very simple, impose nothing on others and easily agreeable to any others who claims to be fellow humans.
Talk about Human Rights in its simplest form to enable most if not all human beings to understand and know it. All the legal and technical jargons are too complex and only understood by few and hence Human Rights as defined by the Specialists does not benefit much of the Humanity.
patriot
To legal representation on November 3rd, 2009 4.40 pm:
Re: “One ever-perplexing question always linger in my mind, are we entitled to legal representation (i.e. a lawyer to advise on our rights) as a citizen when one is being detained?”
Please refer to Article 9(3) and 9(4) of the Singapore Constitution below:
http://statutes.agc.gov.sg/non_version/cgi-bin/cgi_retrieve.pl?&actno=Reved-CONST&date=latest&method=part
[Quote]
Liberty of the person
9. (3) Where a person is arrested, he shall be informed as soon as may be of the grounds of his arrest and shall be allowed to consult and be defended by a legal practitioner of his choice.
9. (4) Where a person is arrested and not released, he shall, without unreasonable delay, and in any case within 48 hours (excluding the time of any necessary journey), be produced before a Magistrate and shall not be further detained in custody without the Magistrate’s authority.
[Endquote]
You may also wish to refer to Article 9(2):
[Quote]
(2) Where a complaint is made to the High Court or any Judge thereof that a person is being unlawfully detained, the Court shall inquire into the complaint and, unless satisfied that the detention is lawful, shall order him to be produced before the Court and release him.
[Endquote]
Now to your statement:
Re: “There are reports on cases that suspects were not allowed audience to their lawyer when investigation to some alleged offences are still on-going.”
The only formal training in the law that I have is in a couple of law courses (probably only equivalent to first year law), and then overseas albeit in a British Commonwealth country. So what I write may not be totally applicable to Singapore, although law and its application in Singapore is supposed to have derived from the same source.
The constitutional subclauses that I quoted above are termed “substantive law” according to what I studied; the term in Singapore’s legal profession may be a different one, but I will use that term anyway because that’s how I understand it.
Substantive law is what is stated, either in the Constitution or in the statutes, the latter also referring to Parliament enacted law of which Singapore’s can be found here:
tp://statutes.agc.gov.sg/
However, while substantive laws tell us what the law is, they do not tell us how it should be carried out. That is provided to us by another set of laws called procedural law – again this is the terminolgy that I learnt that may be different in Singapore’s legal practise – and it should be enunciated, and very clearly, by those agencies that are tasked to carry out those procedures outlined by the said procedural laws.
For the purposes of your question, Singapore’s government agencies are not transparent – and therefore not unaccountable either – about the procedural laws that are in their power to carry out.
Thus, while you have a right to be informed of any grounds for arrest and seek legal counsel for your case according to the Constitution which is also supposedly supreme to all other law, we are not told how long ‘ as soon as may be ‘ is though we know that it cannot exceed 48 hours if detention is deemed unlawful. We also don’t know anything else.
But that’s the state and extent of human rights in Singapore, based apparently on our esteemed Asian values of arbitrariness, lack of clarity, and wilful neglect and abuse.
I hope I helped, though I can’t imagine that ‘help’ is what you can call it.
To patriot on November 6th, 2009 10.27 am:
What you have written as a layman’s understanding of human rights is actually very commendable. But with refernce to this statement by yourself:
Re: “All the legal and technical jargons are too complex and only understood by few and hence Human Rights as defined by the Specialists does not benefit much of the Humanity.”
It’s true that human rights specialists are guilty of what you are saying; I’m equally guilty, I think. But I hope that you also understand that most of the human rights discourse is actually directed at governments – because it is only governments, the very people/organizations who are are responsible for ensuring the said rights who have the power to do so – and not at the ordinary population . Hence, it shouldn’t surprise that the jargon gets very technical.
But I assure you that while the topic of human rights may not get the input it deserves from the ordinary population, the general population nevertheless benefit and welcome it when it comes to them.
To put it bluntly: everyone wants their rights and appreciates it when they get them. But they might not know how to go about securing or protecting them precisely because it is, as you say, a very complex field. Hence the need for specialists.
It’s actually very funny that you use the word “specialist/s” in your post because I was actually thinking of writing a series of posts in this discussion proposing a curriculum for further specialist knowledge in the field of human rights in Singapore.
Hi Robox #16:
so very glad to get a response from You, thank You much.
From a layman point of view, i would say Human Rights have to be Universal in interpretation and apply uniformly throughout the World and to be oversee by an International Body. Individual regime and organization that want to interprete Human Rights to specifically cater to their taste have to have the sanction of the International Body that oversees its’ implementation.
If Human Rights are subjected to and defined to the whims and fancies of regimes, organizations and individual, then it might as well be done away with.
I used the word ‘specialist’ as i would expect people who are interested and wished to have justice done universally will and shall look into every aspect of Natural Rights, Individual Rights to comprehensively define and estalished Human Rights for the benefits of EACH AND EVERY HUMAN. Do allow me to say that i am one very lay person only educated to lower secondary level, despite such, i yearn for my Human Rights as much as the next (hu-)man. If there is anyway i could contribute the tiniest idea, i will do my part.
Something as basic as Human Rights has been worked at for thousands of years and yet few humans have been served and benefitted from it simply because the World has not collectively made it Universal and worse, after working at it and defining it, enforcements are hardly enforced, wasting all the efforts put into it.
As this subject has been brought up numerous times in TOC, i wish and hope that those kind Human Rights Activists/Specialists will want their efforts to bear some fruits and not as usual, go to waste.
Just some simple opinions from a layman, do forgive me for any naivety.
Cheers.
patriot
I like to add that IF Human Rights are for governments and leaders to define, implement and enforce, again we have to forget about Human Rights. The only people who can abuse Human Rights are the rulers, the rich and powerful, the strong and sadistic. The poor and weak obviously are the victims.
In the palaces, slaves(both genders) are abound and outside the palaces reside the poor, weak and average fellow humans. Exploitations of fellow humans has never ceased, it was so thousand years back, it is still so today and for many thousand years to come despite Human Rights been a subject that the Religious, the Intellectuals and Liberators have been working at it throughout history.
Human Rights has to be defined objectively for the common acceptance of the Human Race regardless of their cultures and
Human Rights CANNOT and SHOULD NOT be the prerogative of the superiors and for them to enforce. It has to be uphold by all humans.
Forgive me for dreaming of the Ideal(of Human Rights), i know there are more abuse of it than it(Human Rights) being uphold. I am a dreamer.
patriot
Hi patriot on November 7th, 2009 10.29 am:
First, thank you for your very kind comments @ #16. I move on this comment now:
Re: “I like to add that IF Human Rights are for governments and leaders to define, implement and enforce, again we have to forget about Human Rights.”
This is exactly why I’d wanted to propose a curriculum for specialist education in human rights. It’s because we get constantly ‘bombed’ with some very difficult-to-answer queries like this one of yours that I quoted above. (It shows how profound a thinker you actually are, really.)
Luckily – for the human rights movement, that is – I have the answer to your doubt.
Because of international law agreed upon in the UN which granted, is not binding on any government but which can render any country vulnerable to international sanction in the event of non-compliance, it is not national governments, activists, etc. who have defined what human rights are.
Human rights are already been defined, and accepted by all signatory countries including Singapore, by the UN Charter on Human Rights in 1948.
Every country, including Singapore, includes the UN Charter, either in whole or in part, in their own Constitutions.
You may wish to know how humam rights are already defined in Singapore by scrolling down to Part IV of the Singapore Constitution, the link to which is here:
http://statutes.agc.gov.sg/non_version/cgi-bin/cgi_retrieve.pl?&actno=Reved-CONST&date=latest&method=part
Remembering that the Constitution is informally referred to as “the government’s government”, a rule book that those elected to government HAVE to obey by law, it is not surprising that the human rights discourse is usually a conversation between those who are holding the government accountable to the law that they are governed by, and the government itself.
But it is all ultimately for the protection of ALL citizens; its not about sectoral interests at the expense of all else because of one very fundamental tenet of human rights, and I quote from the Singapore Constitution:
“12(1) All persons are equal before the law and entitled to the equal protection of the law.”
Absolutely NOTHING anywhere in the law books can – or should be allowed to – violate the above constitutional clause.
Hope this helps, and I am very willing to continue in our conversation.
Dear Robox:
You are very kind indeed, it’s a pleasure and honour to have your engagement and enlightenment.
Allow me to say that i know that Singapore is a signatory to many International Agreements. However and pardon me for this; i consider the United Nation as good as our very own Consumer Association, these are organizations that have much problem doing the jobs they are designed for and at the same time due to whatever reason, have generated and got mired in their own problems.
The greatest problem humans face today is the abuse of power by those in power and in authority. Here in SIN, we are warned by our leaders, no lesser than a man known and claimed by many to be the founding father of modern Singapore, that, should the Oppositions in Singapore win the majority in an election, the army maybe called in. There were many precedents of course where such a measure were used in other parts of the World throughout history.
Naturally, no one will believe Human Rights will be uphold by any regime in the World as such benign regime could never be found nor existed before. Now, there is only one choice for the Human Race and that is how the Human Rights Specialists will be able to come up with measures that could minimize abuses. The average man has got to have a basic concept and understanding of Human Rights in order to know if he/she has been violated by others that had acted against the Human Rights(International Law?). What kind of recourse and remedy are available to those that have been abused? How is he/she to get justice? How available are help and assistance to victim?
Supposing the army is brought in to keep a regime in power when it loses in a democratic process of voting and the Oppositions have won because the electorates have voted them. What and where can the Oppositions and the Voters get the justice in the Name of Human Rights. Who will address the aggressor and violater of Human Rights?
I cannot help but remain cynical about something as important and as easily abused as Human Rights. The World has to keep Human Rights Definiton to the simplest and easiest for an average layman to understand and seek redress. Human Rights will not serve humanity any purpose if victim has difficulty understanding it and worse, has to lose more than he/she can and expect to gain in seeking justice, some may even have to risk personal safety.
Robox Sir: as i had indicated, as a fellow human, i wish that all human will be accorded Rights in our existences, however, i must say that the ideal(of Human Rights) is almost unattainable. There is no comfort to me that there are International Agreements with regard the wellbeing of the Human Race, however, the contributions made and are being made by Human Rights Activists and Specialists are much appreciated. Naturally, all humans will look forward to the day when Human Rights will be widely and honourably respected and this will be the best the Human Race can wish for.
patriot
For the sake of discussion, i had posed questions concerning conscription(into uniform forces) at other TOC Threads on Human Rights and sadly other than one fellow Commenter bearing the Moniker Me, i received no response and reaction from any others.
Me likes to say that i was expecting at least some Human Rights Activists to come in to guide me, but alas there were none.
patriot
This Thread seems very quiet and it has yet to extend into Individual Rights and Citizen Rights which are more or less intertwine and interlink with Human Rights.
Do wish to have some Human Rights activists and specialists coming in to enunciate and elaborate on the Subject and how i wish that my two erudite Cyber acquaintances, namely: Gemami and Observer(SG-HK) would come in to participate in the Discussion.
patriot
“If I feel that your house is ugly, I should be able to say that your house is ugly, but that does not mean I should have the right to burn your house because I think that it is ugly.”
To be able to say “your house is ugly” straight to the face of the house owner, you need to have had build a deep mutual understanding and strong friendship with that chap, and only then should these words be uttered, and these words would then be taken as a feedback from a person who said them with good intend.
Othewise, these words would only serve to hurt the receiving party, if blantantly uttered in the name of human rights.
Your human rights would be severly curtailed in numerous other areas if you utter every thought swimming in your head about your wife and her dear mother.
So be humane to yourself too.
Read here for what human rights are defined by the rest of the world as a benchmark. http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/
24) kee Seng
/// Read here for what human rights are defined by the rest of the world as a benchmark. /////
The “rest of the world” who harp over HR is really still mainly the western world, who pratices HR with double standards as they deem fit.
Singapore is a signatory to the Human Rights Convention and yet the people are not allow the freedom of expressions to demonstrate, on the contrary, even a single person can be deemed for illegal assembly and be charged if deemed so. And what will happen to the person charged after that?
Here is a clear cut case of a signatory country trampling on the Human Rights of its’ citizens.
Depending on regimes to uphold Human Rights is like asking the devils to guide one to heaven.
patriot