A recent High Court ruling has reignited fierce debate on Freedom of Expression in Singapore. Dr Chee Soon Juan, the leader of the opposition Singapore Democratic Party, has just lost his appeal to overturn a conviction for speaking in a public place without a licence. Sentenced to a fine of $20,000 or imprisonment of 20 weeks in default, the SDP leader is facing the very real risk that, incarcerated, he will be unable to lead his party in the forthcoming general elections.
Dr Chee’s case is symptomatic of a wider problem in Singapore: the systematic repression of the right to freedom of expression. On the issue of freedom of the press, former Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew remarked:
“We cannot allow [the press] to assume a role in Singapore that the American media play to America, that of invigilator, adversary and inquisitor of the administration.”
The Singapore government has the power to appoint all members of staff and directors at Singapore Press Holdings Ltd (SPH), a corporation which owns all the general circulation newspapers and often employs journalists with prior government associations. The Newspaper and Printing Press Act restricts newspaper content and circulation, as seen in successful cases against the Asian Wall Street Journal, Time and Economist. Similarly the Broadcast Act prohibits foreign media commenting on domestic issues. This regulation has created a tendency towards self-censorship among the media.
Criminal and civil defamation laws permit imprisonment, fines and damages which have exceeded $5.8 million.[i] The government have made increasing use of the defamation laws to those who report or express dissenting views. In November 2010, Alan Shadrake was convicted of contempt of court, for his critical review of Singapore’s death penalty law and administration in his book “Once a Jolly Hangman: Singapore Justice in the Dock”. He also faces separate charges of criminal defamation, which carries a maximum penalty of two years in prison and a hefty fine.
Singapore has not ratified the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, but as a member state of the United Nations is bound to respect “fundamental human rights”. But who decides these rights? Many commentators will argue that they are those enshrined in the Universal Declaration on Human Rights, in which Freedom of Expression is guaranteed by Article 19.
The United Nations Human Rights Committee has stressed that freedom of expression ensures the free political debate essential to democracy[ii] and has expressed concern that overbearing government controls of the media are incompatible with Freedom of Expression.
The Singapore government’s view is different. They have long asserted that human rights principles and conceptions are dominated by Western perceptions and argue for an “Asian Values” interpretation of human rights. This has been characterised as the assertion of the primacy of duty to the community over individual rights and the expectation of trust in authority and dominance of the state leaders.
Crucially for Dr Chee and Alan Shandrake, it translates to the precedence of economic and social rights over the political right to freedom of expression. According to the Singapore Institute of International Affairs, this theory, known as the “liberty trade-off”, asserts that:
“Asian governments are justified in restricting civil and political rights in some circumstances in favour of social stability and economic growth. Civil and political rights are immaterial when people are destitute and society is unstable. Accordingly, as luxuries to be enjoyed once there is social order, civil and political liberties must be temporarily suspended so as to not inhibit the government’s delivery of economic and social necessities and so as to not threaten or destroy future development plans.”
Whilst this argument may have been slightly more palatable if Singapore’s citizens were, in fact destitute, the reality is that Singapore is ranked as one of the world’s wealthiest countries and boasts a high life expectancy. Thus in Singapore’s case, arguments made in favour of a “liberty trade-off” are rendered completely untenable.
The “Asian Values” hypothesis is equally suspect. The UDHR recognises the universal applicability of human rights and any nation party to this treaty is not permitted to restrict rights purely on cultural, religious or political grounds.
The recent murder of gay rights campaigner David Kato who campaigned tirelessly against the “Anti-Homosexuality Bill” in Uganda, highlighted the potential clash between international standards of human rights and cultural specific attitudes. The draft bill broadens the prohibition the criminalisation of homosexuality and introduces the death penalty in certain circumstances. Even against a backdrop of culturally systemic homophobia, regarded as “un-African” and enshrined in the penal code, which makes homosexual acts illegal, the United Nations has been quick to condemn the new bill as “draconian” and “blatantly discriminatory”, warning that if enacted, the bill would bring Uganda into a “direct collision” with established international human rights standards aimed at preventing discrimination.
Similarly, even in the face of blatant and shocking human rights abuses, those who oppose a normative standard of fundamental rights will defend violations. In Afghanistan, footage has recently emerged of a woman being stoned to death after she ran away from an arranged marriage. A religious justification and general suspicion of alternative values was forthcoming from a Taliban spokesman:
“Stoning is in the Koran, and that it is Islamic law. There are people who call it inhuman – but in doing so they insult the Prophet. They want to bring foreign thinking to this country.”
Although perhaps more stark, these cultural and religious justifications for violating rights are as unacceptable as Singapore’s purported assertion of an “Asian Values” conception of human rights. Even though the Singapore government’s language is more subtle, their arguments amount to same basic tenet: the purported justification of the denial of fundamental human rights, by reference to cultural, religious or political specific norms. Speaking recently in New York, the UN Secretary-General, Ban Ki Moon warned against such an interpretation of human rights:
“Yes, we recognize that social attitudes run deep. Yes, social change often comes only with time. Yet, let there be no confusion: where there is tension between cultural attitudes and universal human rights, universal human rights must carry the day. ”
|
Pointer to opposition:
a) Lack of democracy and transparency
b) Faulted foreign talent policy
c) Rocket HDB Prices
d) Unaffortable health care
e) Failed CPF and retirement policies
f) Over-spending on defence
g) Failure of local entreprises even with DSO, Biopolis, Fusionpolis, A-stars
h) Failed COE policy
i) Lack of accountability for Temasek and GIC
j) Freedown of press and speeches
k) Income same as last ten years
L) Over-crowding of MRT
M) Surcharge for water and electricity
N) removal of GST for basic necessarsities like food, transport, education, medical
o) workfare for unemployed
pointers
P) removal of GRC system and stop increase of election wards
Q) Decrease of all MPs and ministers pays. Pays should be based on USA first world politician pays
R)President should be nominated and elected by citizens
S)Biased employment policy of civic services.Jobs only available for elites.
T)Removal of 4D and toto centres from HDB heartlands
V)All PRs must converted to citizens after 3 years or PRs would be no more.
W)Annual dividends from GIC ＆Tamasek
X)Free medical for all senior citizens
Y)Free education for all not only malay
z)Declare that PRs is foreigners
Z)
This is the problem with authoritarianism.
Authoritarian governments often start off with the best interests of the people at heart. But when the system becomes entrenched, it becomes self-serving, inbred and mediocre, with an instinct for self-preservation and self-perpetuation over all other considerations.
History has proven this to be the case, from Marcos’ Philippines to Suharto’s Indonesia to Meiji Japan.
Therefore Sir winston Churchill said “democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others that have been tried”.
All organisation need funds or donation in order to operate. So do not lump different issues together. If you do not support him then no need to donate.
Chee Soon Juan is indeed in trouble and need bailed out. If you want to help him please do so as a kind soul. Chee Soon Juan is now more mature and should not behave like a child anymore. Hope he seriously have SIngaporeans at heart.
When there is no transparency and real democracy what is this so called “Hard Truths”?
Older singaporeans gave PAP a chance even though they have no track record. Now is time for us younger ones to give opposition a chance.
It might be a deadly chance, a chance of your country collapsing. What is indeed kindness. If you are kind to one person who in turn is detrimental to the entire nation, is that really kind? In the context of real democracy, there should also be sensitivity. Would you also advocate to bring some of the cruel Japanese soldier to trial for their crime against humanity during the Japanese occupation since some of them are still alive today.
Most of the young were not born yet during those time in the 1950, 1960′s or 1970′s. It is difficult to judge from today’s perspective of what was wrong then. For your info, it was perfectly correct, even many parents arrange for their sons to marry 2 girls at the same time in the 1950′s. Polygamy was perfectly a right thing then. When you put it in today’s context without further understanding, it would be totally miscontrued.
In time of chaos, when many are in extreme poverty, hunger, don’t know what to eat for the next day, just for mere survival, if you are a man, or woman, with deep altruism, with deep intention, for the ultimate benefits of all. Strong willed, you will well determined to do what you strongly believe is right at that very point of time. There would be obstacles, of course, you will just push aside those who are in your way for the benefits of all. Someone told me that he has read that Mahatma Ghandi did killed some of his noble fellow countrymen for the reason that they were in the way of what he wanted to do.
Asian Values, Western Values, is there any others? Next we will have S.E Asian Values, South Asian Values, East Asian Values, West Asian Values.
How about just basic Human values.
Stop gagging my mouth, ears, eyes and mind!
you need CHANGE, the kind that egypt, tunisia, libya has gone through.
there is no way change comes with a bunch of thieves and despots and dictators…….
they will rob the central bank of its GOLD bars when they are FORCE TO GO change AND your cpf may not be there too.
HI All highly qualified unemployed PMET
The election is coming. There is 12 single wards and 15 GRCs. Let make the papayas unemployed so that they can understand the hardships and stop all the PRs influx like nobody business. Singapore is just a small city. How much people you want?