Connect with us

Current Affairs

Your Voice on TOC

Giving more prominence to your comments on TOC.

Published

on

This website is about your voice, not ours. It would be ironic to talk about human rights and democracy without highlighting your involvement in shaping the discussion.

This week, we will be publishing two full pieces consisting exclusively of a collation of comments YOU have made on TOC’s human rights contributions. In the course of the commentary on these pieces, content has developed that warrants greater exposure and discussion.

This is the primary criteria for selecting the comments that appear in our new innovation, Your Voice: the ability to provoke deeper thought.

The beginning of Your Voice underscores the advantage of new media over the old. The internet is unique in its ability to generate organic intellectual discussion, and is a good microcosm of healthy participative democracies. You, our readers, have proven this by taking the debate to ever higher levels.

Our only input in this process is the selection of comments, as well as editing them for brevity. Ellipses have been used where comments have had to be cut short for length, but we have done so in a way that preserves the original intent of the comment.

In the spirit of free speech and democratic dialogue, keep the comments coming!

Choo Zheng Xi

Editor-in-Chief

TOC

————–

Your Voice

Your ideas and opinions generated on the issues raised in the article: Citizen Woon

14 June 2008

Solo Bear on June 14th, 2008 1.45 pm

Woon has been living overseas many years. We are all just armchair critics. He knows the global scene better than anyone of us.

To the rest who are “supporters” of Human Rights,

One of the statements issued by Human Rights Groups is the fair and equal treatment and opportunities for immigrants. Any takers out there to support the government’s call to support and promote immigrant workforce in Singapore?

Thought so. There’s Woon’s point on “the selective process” of Human Rights supporters.

Silencer on June 14th, 2008 8.01 am

Human rights is indeed often misused as a tool by extremists and other dissidents. However, to extinguish all notion of discussion about human rights because of this is to operate on a patient with an axe; there are merits to the discussion, and one with the people’s mandate such as the Government should take it upon itself as its duty to listen and reflect on the voices of its people.

Inconsistencies are replicated all over the world, in every imaginable subject of contention; this also does not translate into a reason to discourage discussion.

Alan Wong on June 14th, 2008 10.11 am

At the very least, I think every Singaporean citizen should
have the very basic freedom to question the integrity of
our Ministers on account of public opinion and concern.

Daniel on June 14th, 2008 1.49 pm

Solo Bear:
“However, Woon’s words must be seen in the global context. That’s because Human Rights is about global issues and not just
Singapore’s.”

I agree with what you say about human right in global perspective. However Woon’s word are not likely to direct at global perspective but locally. The coincidence at which he put this remark clear indicate that it is used to explain for Dr Chee’s action. It will be appropiate not to even comment about worldwide issues now when we ourselves didn’t even experience what is meant as human right locally. Woon’s word comes a time when the government need to justify their action again Dr Chee, and it comes in handy using a bootlicker just like Chua sister. If they really worry about global perspective then he should ought to talk human before the Dr Chee’s case, not in the midst.

We should be astute to detect such intention of Woon. If he really talk about global human right, he should have EQ to keep his mouth shut and not let his IQ to do than raking now. So he either he lack EQ or he direct his remark at Dr Chee.

Claire C on June 14th, 2008 6.35 pm

Common Singaporean: Wants no more than stable shelter, food, income

Youth of today: Wants more than just Gucci, Rebok, Zara Sushi, Korean Food, French Food. They want the world’s best underwear to cover themselves. Thinking of Human Rights? The right to have branded goods.

BlackSheep on June 14th, 2008 8.46 pm

Shanmugam and Woon were recently appointed Law Minister and AG respectively. Both have made some controversial statements. I take it as a way of announcing their presence to the general public.

Freedom of Assembly is not going to happen with this gov’t and its paranoia. Not for a long while. Permit given only during elections.

The focus should be on Freedom of Expression before we think about Freedom of Assemby. We are already expressing ourselves in TOC but there is a need to know the level of participation , the numbers, especially those who will be eligible to vote in 2011. I think TOC has to come up with some kind of mass marketing strategy to reach out to the public.

Dr Syed Alwi on June 14th, 2008 11.58 pm

Dear People,

There ARE conflicts and contradictions between Islamic Law and Universal Declaration of Human Rights as discussed in the article in the link below :

http://www.iheu.org/node/2949

In this sense – Walter Woon has a point. I can accept some small – very small – loosening of Human Rights in a multi-cultural setting.

BUT and its a big but –

We cannot take cultural relativism too far. Otherwise one can justify the Myanmar junta’s actions during the cyclone Nargis aftermath as being part and parcel of Myanmar’s political culture !

Look – the only guarantee we have against tyranny, corruption and oppression IS Human Rights and Democracy !

If you give up your rights – then how will you defend yourself against tyranny ?

Walter Woon better have a good answer to that question……………..

Anonymous on June 14th, 2008 11.49 pm

As Voltaire had declared, “I may not agree with what you have to say but i will defend your right to say it”

Chris Patten stated, “In a democracy everybody has a right to be represented, including the jerks.”

Because in a democracy, dissidence is tolerated. Rights activists are also fighting for the rights of even those who disagree with them.

In an autocracy, they have the real fanatics there: They don’t disagree/argue/reason with you, they just simply give their opponents a bullet to save all that trouble.

————–

Continue Reading
Click to comment
Subscribe
Notify of
0 Comments
Newest
Oldest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Current Affairs

Farewell to Dr Lee Wei Ling: Rain marks solemn tribute, echoing her father’s funeral

Dr Lee Wei Ling’s funeral was conducted on 12 October 2024, in Singapore, with family members leading the procession in the rain. In a heartfelt eulogy, her brother, Lee Hsien Yang, remembered her dedication to medicine and family. Dr Lee had requested a simple ceremony, with her ashes to be scattered at sea.

Published

on

Li Huanwu and Li Shaowu sending off their aunt, Dr Lee Wei Ling in the rain (Photo: Lianhe Zaobao/唐家鴻)

Dr Lee Wei Ling was farewelled on 12 October 2024, in a solemn funeral ceremony attended by close family members and friends.

The weather was marked by light rain, drawing comparisons to the conditions during her father, Lee Kuan Yew’s funeral in 2015.

Her nephews, Li Huanwu and Li Shaowu, led the procession, carrying Dr Lee’s portrait and walking side by side under the rain, symbolically reflecting the loss felt by her family.

In his emotional eulogy through a recorded video, her brother, Lee Hsien Yang, spoke of Dr Lee’s profound contributions to medicine and her unshakable devotion to family.

He described her as a remarkable individual whose life had left an indelible mark on those who knew her, as well as on Singapore’s medical community.

Expressing deep sorrow at her passing, Lee Hsien Yang reflected on their close bond and the immense loss he felt, having been unable to attend her final farewell.

He recalled his private goodbye to her in June 2022, a poignant moment that stayed with him during her last months.

Lee Hsien Yang also reiterated Dr Lee’s wish for a simple funeral, a reflection of her humility.

In accordance with her wishes, her body was cremated, and her ashes will be scattered at sea, symbolising her desire for a modest and unobtrusive departure from the world.

LHY acknowledged the efforts of his sons, Li Huanwu and Li Shaowu, for their role in managing their aunt’s care during his absence, thanking them for their dedication to her comfort in her final days.

During his eulogy for his sister, Lee Hsien Yang also conveyed a message from Dr Lee regarding the family’s long-standing issue surrounding their home at 38 Oxley Road.

Quoting from Dr Lee’s message, LHY said: “My father, Lee Kuan Yew, and my mother, Kwa Geok Choo’s, unwavering and deeply felt wish was for their house at 38 Oxley Road, Singapore 238629, to be demolished upon the last parent’s death.”

Dr Lee had been a vocal advocate for ensuring that this wish was honoured since Lee Kuan Yew’s death in 2015.

Dr Lee and LHY had strongly supported their father’s wishes, while their elder brother, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong, took a different stance. This disagreement led to a public and highly publicised rift within the family.

In her final message, Dr Lee reiterated: “Lee Kuan Yew had directed each of his three children to ensure that their parents’ wish for demolition be fulfilled. He had also appealed directly to the people of Singapore. Please honour my father by honouring his wish for his home to be demolished.”

Dr Lee had maintained a private life, focusing on her medical career as a respected neurologist. She was known for her candid views, often unflinching in her advocacy for transparency and integrity.

Her professional accomplishments, combined with her strong commitment to her parents’ legacy, made her a significant figure in both Singapore’s medical community and public discourse.

Diagnosed in 2020 with progressive supranuclear palsy (PSP), a rare neurodegenerative disorder, Dr Lee faced immense physical and emotional challenges in her final years.

The illness progressively affected her movement, speech, and ability to swallow.

Despite her health struggles, Dr Lee remained actively involved in public discussions, particularly on matters concerning her father’s legacy, until her condition worsened to the point where communication became difficult.

By March 2023, her brother LHY revealed that her condition had deteriorated significantly, and he feared he might not be able to see her again due to his own circumstances.

Even in her final months, Dr Lee maintained a close relationship with her immediate family, who cared for her during her illness.

Dr Lee’s funeral and cremation mark the end of a significant era for the Lee family and Singapore.

Her legacy as a dedicated neurologist and a firm advocate for her parents’ values will continue to resonate, even as the debates over the future of the Oxley Road property remain unresolved.

The rain that fell during her funeral, so reminiscent of her father’s final farewell, added a symbolic layer to this momentous chapter in Singapore’s history.

Continue Reading

Current Affairs

TJC issued 3rd POFMA order under Minister K Shanmugam for alleged falsehoods

The Transformative Justice Collective (TJC) was issued its third POFMA correction order on 5 October 2024 under the direction of Minister K Shanmugam for alleged falsehoods about death penalty processes. TJC has rejected the government’s claims, describing POFMA as a tool to suppress dissent.

Published

on

The Transformative Justice Collective (TJC), an advocacy group opposed to the death penalty, was issued its third Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Act (POFMA) correction direction on 5 October 2024.

The correction was ordered by Minister for Home Affairs and Law, K Shanmugam, following TJC’s publication of what the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) alleges to be false information regarding Singapore’s death row procedures and the prosecution of drug trafficking cases.

These statements were made on TJC’s website and across its social media platforms, including Facebook, Instagram, TikTok, and X (formerly Twitter).

In addition to TJC, civil activist Kokila Annamalai was also issued a correction direction by the minister over posts she made on Facebook and X between 4 and 5 October 2024.

According to MHA, these posts echoed similar views on the death penalty and the legal procedures for drug-related offences, and contained statements that the ministry claims are false concerning the treatment of death row prisoners and the state’s legal responsibilities in drug trafficking cases.

MHA stated that the posts suggested the government schedules and stays executions arbitrarily, without due regard to legal processes, and that the state does not bear the burden of proving drug trafficking charges.

However, these alleged falsehoods are contested by MHA, which maintains that the government strictly follows legal procedures, scheduling executions only after all legal avenues have been exhausted, and that the state always carries the burden of proof in such cases.

In its official release, MHA emphasised, “The prosecution always bears the legal burden of proving its case beyond a reasonable doubt, and this applies to all criminal offences, including drug trafficking.”

It also pointed to an article on the government fact-checking site Factually to provide further clarification on the issues raised.

As a result of these allegations, both TJC and Annamalai are now required to post correction notices. TJC must display these corrections on its website and social media platforms, while Annamalai is required to carry similar notices on her Facebook and X posts.

TikTok has also been issued a targeted correction direction, requiring the platform to communicate the correction to all Singapore-based users who viewed the related TJC post.

In a statement following the issuance of the correction direction, TJC strongly rejected the government’s claims. The group criticised the POFMA law, calling it a “political weapon used to crush dissent,” and argued that the order was more about the exercise of state power than the pursuit of truth. “We have put up the Correction Directions not because we accept any of what the government asserts, but because of the grossly unjust terms of the POFMA law,” TJC stated.

TJC further argued that the government’s control over Singapore’s media landscape enables it to push pro-death penalty views without opposition. The group also stated that it would not engage in prolonged legal battles over the POFMA correction orders, opting to focus on its abolitionist work instead.

This marks the third time TJC has been subject to a POFMA correction direction in recent months.

The group was previously issued two orders in August 2024 for making similar statements concerning death row prisoners.

In its latest statement, MHA noted that despite being corrected previously, TJC had repeated what the ministry views as falsehoods.

MHA also criticised TJC for presenting the perspective of a convicted drug trafficker without acknowledging the harm caused to victims of drug abuse.

Annamalai, a prominent civil rights activist, is also known for her involvement in various social justice campaigns. She was charged in June 2024 for her participation in a pro-Palestinian procession near the Istana. Her posts, now subject to correction, contained information similar to those presented by TJC regarding death penalty procedures and drug-related cases.

POFMA, which was introduced in 2019, allows the government to issue correction directions when it deems falsehoods are being spread online.

Critics of the law argue that it can be used to suppress dissent, while the government asserts that it is a necessary tool for combating misinformation. The law has been frequently invoked against opposition politicians and activists.

As of October 2024, Minister K Shanmugam has issued 17 POFMA directions, more than any other minister. Shanmugam, who was instrumental in introducing POFMA, is followed by National Development Minister Desmond Lee, who has issued 10 POFMA directions.

Major media outlets, including The Straits Times, Channel News Asia, and Mothership, have covered the POFMA directions. However, as of the time of writing, none have included TJC’s response rejecting the government’s allegations.

Continue Reading

Trending