The following are excerpts of the Singapore Government’s response to the “White Paper on the repression of political freedom in Singapore” by Canadian law firm, Amsterdam and Peroff.
You can view the full text of the response here.
——
We have received queries on the “White Paper on The Repression of Political Freedoms in Singapore: The Case of Opposition Leader Dr Chee Soon Juan” by Amsterdam & Peroff.
The Paper recycles the views and comments that Dr Chee Soon Juan has regularly expressed. Singaporeans have, however, repeatedly rejected Dr Chee, his politics and his party. In the 1997 General Elections, Dr Chee lost decisively, obtaining only 35% of the votes. In the 2001 General Elections, he obtained only 20% of the votes, the lowest of any candidate in the Elections, where there were over 100 candidates. These results were a clear indication of what the electorate thought of him and his policies. In the 2006 General Elections, Dr Chee’s party, the SDP, consistently polled the lowest votes in every constituency in which its candidates stood, and some of them were not far off from losing their deposits. There are others from the Opposition who are not only in the current Parliament but have also won several elections successively. These facts are not to be found in the Paper. Despite these facts, the Paper seeks to portray Dr Chee as the Leader of the Opposition in Singapore and a martyr.
——
Singapore has a written Constitution that is Supreme and which guarantees fundamental liberties such as the right to life or personal liberty, right to equal protection, freedom of speech, assembly and association, and freedom of religion. Such rights are not absolute. They need to be balanced against the interests of society as a whole. Just as much as the freedom of speech and freedom of assembly need to be protected, we believe that it is a fundamental human right of all our people to live in a safe and stable environment, free from violence and social disorder.
—–
All Singapore citizens, including Dr Chee and his supporters, are guaranteed under Article 14 of our Constitution the right to assemble peaceably and the right to form associations. The Constitution recognises that these rights are not absolute and allows for necessary restrictions in the interest of the security of Singapore or public order. Such legitimate restrictions are consistent with international instruments such as the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
—-
The law of defamation is not unique to Singapore and as in other jurisdictions that value the rule of law, the purpose of such a law is not to stifle free speech and expression, but to protect debate from untrue and scurrilous personal attacks.
—-
There are 5,500 foreign newspapers and journals in circulation in Singapore. Many freely carry articles critical of Singapore. Singapore’s population is not only well-educated, it is internationally connected and highly wired. Household broadband penetration is at 115%. Singapore ranks amongst the top three connected cities in the world. The Singapore population is able to judge for itself the truth.
—-
It is pertinent to note that the Constitution of Singapore was amended to allow opposition politicians who have failed to win a seat at an election to hold seats in Parliament as “non-constituency” members. Opposition non-constituency members have not been reticent, inside or outside Parliament, in criticising Government policies and holding the Government to account. If the intention of Government leaders were to remove the opposition from Parliament by utilising defamation laws, the Constitution would not have been amended to ensure precisely the opposite effect.
—-
Singapore has grown and prospered because of its adherence to the rule of law and its robust legal framework. In a world of competing interests and priorities, Singaporeans must choose for themselves the kind of government they want, and the appropriate balance to be struck between societal interests and the individual. Singapore does not seek to prescribe or impose its values on others, but simply for an open dialogue on these issues untainted by misrepresentation. This response clarifies facts which the Paper chose to ignore.
” You won’t find any opposition leaders from Europe or N America doing this kind of running dog business.”
Of course you won’t find opp leader doing that since the people and their law and culture already enable USA to have democracy and rule of Law. Why seek other foreigner country’s help if they can do it themselves ? If Singaporeans capable of doing it themselves, why the silence and anonymous when our clowns screw up big times ? You means that Singaporeans approve the honest mistakes of Pappy by their silence and apathy ?
Beside, some commenters just love talking and answering themselves using multiple nicks. Go GeyLang if you are lonely and pervert, not TOC.
How come no comments from the WP’s Low & Sylvia Lim; SPP’s Chiam; Viswa etc?
Utopia,
This is what i like about you
“Beside, some commenters just love talking and answering themselves using multiple nicks.”
How clairvoyant you are.
There is evidence to suggest that political system is not mutually inclusive of the economy.
HK, TW, SKorea are all one of the Asian Dragons. Their political systems are closer to western democracy than authoritarian democracy.
These countries are way way much much larger than singapore and thus that much more difficult to control and manage . Yet, they did it and achieveing great economic success.
Japan and China are super powers and yet they do not have authoritarian democracy since china is a communist country, correct me if wrong, while Japan can boast a vibrant democracy.
Can some one rebut me if democracy is mutually inclusive or exclusive of political system?
What if a country changes its political system towards western Democracy that even Reagan and Obama and Clinton can be proud of?
In my view, life goes on and could even be better. But one thingie is for sure. Economy should continue to run if not improve.
anyone who objects my views, simply rebut. Else i take it as silence means acceptance which many singaporeans practice quite a lot.
Utopia on November 14th, 2009 12.47 pm -
“enable USA to have democracy and rule of Law”
Sure or not? Where is your economic & political depth. Don’t gleam the surface.
Question time – Who was the blowjob man given a second term of office?
Q2. Who puts people without a trial in Guantanamo?
Q3. Who behaves like a bully and invade without UN sanction from Iraq to Afganistan?:
Q4.
Q5.
I’ve more but I don’t think you have university brains to answer. So I’ll just shut up for now.
Please no rubbish. We’re intelligent readers.
CNA broadcast part 2 of the film “Truth about democracy” today.
The message I got from this film, imho, is that democracy is not all good.
I wonder why they showed it?
I am not saying there is propaganda . I am saying a question.
To clarify , there is surely no propagani.
But i assume u believe me.
since i do not think there’s anything wrong with the film, i searched and found this url showing the films:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8001207403001272754#
History will be kind to us, for we intend to write it , so says mafia. It is and will always be “godly” laws that rule mafia kingdom on earth. Who believes them?
I find it amusing that the Singapore government actually took the effort to respond to the so called white paper. The white paper hardly registers on search engines to begin with. By taking such accusations so seriously, the government has unwittingly lent credence to the accuser. Perhaps this is done for domestic consumption. But sadly it will not work on the world stage and they knew it.
Singapore has a written Constitution that is Supreme and which guarantees fundamental liberties such as the right to life or personal liberty, right to equal protection, freedom of speech, assembly and association, and freedom of religion.
Explain that to Dr Lim Hock Siew and all the other political detainees.
Such rights are not absolute. They need to be balanced against the interests of society as a whole.
Oh I see ! so I guess it is in the interest of Singapore that we do not have a minimum wage system, while our public housing prices is pegged to the market. It is also in our interest to flood this place with foreign labour to keep our wages low…to keep the best cut of our flesh for foreign fat cats in Sentosa island while banishing all the rest to wonderful Sengkang.
Just as much as the freedom of speech and freedom of assembly need to be protected….when was the people’s freedom of speech and assembly protected ?I do see a lot of freedom of speech and assembly by the PAP and nothing else.
Animal farm – all animals are equal but some are more equal than others.
This may be a fact of life but we should always aim to make it better.
Come-on Ohnani, just because Utopia couldn’t see your sarcasm doesn’t mean you should mock him. A gentle word to help him see the light would have been so much more amicable, and avoided this heated exchange, no? In the end, instead of rebutting the misguided points put up by Marcus Teo, the focus got shifted to a meaningless one-on-one between the two of you. Who I believe basically stand on the same side.
Anyway, from the -ve votes you’ve got, he/she is not the only one who misintepreted what you were trying to say.
Utopia, for your part, I suggest you do what some moderators of this site recommend. Before responding to a post, read it again, carefully. Some people like Ohnani like to use indirect free-kicks to score goals, instead of penalties.
In my case, after typing what I want to say, I usually take a break to do something else. Then I come back to read what I have typed, correct spellings and grammar, add points, subtract points, and generally refine my post before clicking “Submit”.
Troublesome but it will make your message so much clearer to other readers, and maybe even to yourself, compared to the one you initially typed in the heat of the moment. Give it a try.
P.S. Ohnani, would you consider changing your nick? It sounds so… obscene in a serious discussion board like this one. ;p
Singapore – Constitution
Part IV Fundamental Liberties
Article 9 Liberty of the Person
(1) No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty save in accordance with law.
(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.
(3) Where a person is arrested, he shall be informed as soon as may be of the grounds of his arrest and shall be a!lowed to consult and be defended by a legal practitioner of his choice.
(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.
(5) Clauses (3) and (4) shall not apply to an enemy alien or to any person arrested for contempt of Parliament pursuant to a warrant issued under the hand of the Speaker.
(6) Nothing in this article shall invalidate any law
(a) in force before 16 Sep 1963 which authorizes the arrest and detention of any person in the interests of public safety, peace and good order; or
(b) relating to the misuse of drugs or intoxicating substances which authorizes the arrest and detention of any person for the purpose of treatment and rehabilitation, by reason of such law being inconsistent with clauses (3) and (4), and, in particular, nothing in this article shall affect the validity or operation of any such law before 10 March 1978.
Singapore – Constitution
Part IV Fundamental Liberties
Article 9 Liberty of the Person
(1) …personal liberty save in accordance with law.
6) Nothing in this article shall invalidate any law
(a) in force before 16 Sep 1963 which authorizes the arrest and detention of any person in the interests of public safety, peace and good order; or
From the full reply
“The Paper mentions Chia Thye Poh, who was key member of the Communist Party Malaya (CPM) who advocated armed insurgency and violence”
Wow, from a sympatiser or left leaning, Mr Chia is now labelled as a key member fo the CPM. That he was a communist was never proven. Unfortunately dead man cannot challenge history re-written by the oppressors.
Soon we will discover a national hero, who worked for the Japanese while secretly organising anti-japanese activities. Just like Napoleans was the hero who fough Jones and Snowball was a traitor
Let the Press be truly privatized and the views uncensored. that will be the true measure of truth. Those who spread rumours can still be sued or challenged. But controlling the press is not gentleman in terms of freedom.
The fact that we r all here means that the papers are not free and won’t express our viewthoughts.
Amazing right, till now, no reporter comments about our super high HDB prices. Can you call it a free press? I wont be surprised if HDB hits 1mil and everyone is saying, only uniquely Singapore and the press praised the gov for such an excellent policy.