The Liberal International (LI) has submitted a written statement to the United Nations' Human Rights Council. The statement cites human rights violations in several countries including Singapore and Burma. (See below)
LI is an international body of liberal democratic parties with ruling parties as members including the US Democratic Party. The SDP's membership was recently approved by the LI's Bureau and will be confirmed at its Congress to be held in Cairo in October this year.
On another front, the Young Democrats have just returned from a communications workshop in Hong Kong this week. The event was organised by the Council of Asian Liberals and Democrats (CALD). YD Honorary Secretary Jarrod Luo attended the workshop together with activist Chong Kai Xiong.
LI Statement
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights adopted by the United Nations General Assembly expresses the rights to which all human beings are respectfully entitled to. In Article 18 and 19, the Declaration states clearly: “Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion,” and that “everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression.”
Unfortunately in many parts of the world today, human rights violations and infringement of fundamental freedoms are still taking place.
Liberal International would like to address the grave situation and appeal to the Human Rights Council to pay greater attention particularly to the following countries:
DR Congo
Liberal International notes that an increase in armed conflict deepened the human rights and humanitarian crisis in North Kivu province in the eastern Democratic Republic of the Congo (DR Congo). Armed groups and government forces committed war crimes and other serious human rights violations. By the end of the year, one in four of the population of North Kivu was displaced by conflict;
Considering that sexual violence in DR Congo is frequently used as a weapon of war; and that as a war crime, the weapon of sexual violence destabilises normal community life. This destabilisation prohibits a society returning to daily practice in the longer term, and prohibits reconciliation between communities;
This grave situation must be addressed, and calls on all governments to strengthen the MONUC (United Nations Organisation Mission in DR Congo) peacekeeping mission and to support the International Criminal Court’s work in bringing those responsible for war crimes to justice;
Russia
Condemning human rights violations, in particular civil rights – these rights are entrenched in any democracy and should therefore never be under pressure;
Urging Russia to fulfill its commitments as member of the Council of Europe; Peaceful demonstrations (opposition parties or civil rights activists) can no longer be prohibited, an investigation should be conducted into the murders of journalists and human rights activists and Russia should be fully cooperative in finding a solution for the considerable delay in human rights cases (25,000) at the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg;
Iraq
Referring to the Human Rights Watch report of 17 August 2009, LI appeals to the Iraqi authorities to begin investigations into the recent killings of men suspected of homosexual conduct and to punish the perpetrators;
Afghanistan
Considering that the pressure imposed by the former Taliban government has been lifted for a few years and that a transition to a democratic republic is well under way and supported by the international community, LI urges the Afghan government to carefully monitor respect of women’s rights. Furthermore any further diminishing of women’s rights should be curbed, hereby referring to, for example, the law permitting Shia men to deny their wives food and sustenance if they refuse to obey their husbands’ sexual demands;
Tunisia
Noting with concern the increasing incidents of intimidation, harassment and acts of brutality against those expressing views critical of the Tunisian government in the lead-up to the presidential and parliamentary elections due to take place in October 2009;
Noting that Government control still weighs down on most of the media to a certain extent, leaving little room for a lively debate on current affairs. Journalists deal with repressive laws, bureaucratic harassment, the withdrawal of state advertising, corruption, police violence, political trials and even torture;
LI stresses that freedom of expression, association and assembly are the pre-requisites for the free debate which is indispensable in pre-election period.
Action:
Calls on the Tunisian authorities to end the harassment of and attacks on human rights defenders and to allow a free debate on the upcoming elections and the human rights situation in the country;
Appeals the HRC to insist that the Tunisian authorities uphold their obligations under Article 8 of the Tunisian Constitution and Articles 19, 21 and 22 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, to which Tunisia is a signatory, which guarantees the right to freedom of expression, assembly and association respectively, and urges the Tunisian government to immediately end its repression of dissent and its intimidation, harassment and brutality against human rights defenders;
Singapore
The International Bar Association (IBA) produced a report in July 2008 after it held one of its annual conferences in Singapore. In that report, the IBA stated that:
“The judiciary in Singapore has a good international reputation for the integrity of their judgments when adjudicating commercial cases that do not involve the interests of People’s Action Party (PAP) members or their associates. However, in cases involving PAP litigants or PAP interests, there are concerns about an actual or apparent lack of impartiality and/or independence, which casts doubt on the decisions made in such cases.”
That same year, half a dozen individuals were found guilty of contempt of court in three separate cases. The five Singaporeans and one US citizen were imprisoned.
In addition, the editor of the Wall Street Journal was ordered to pay approximately 5,000 Euros for contempt of court in three articles that appeared in the newspaper.
In March 2008, a group of activists participated in a peaceful protest against price hikes and the million-dollar salaries of the ministers. Led by Chee Soon Juan, the group was arrested and the activists were prosecuted for taking part in an assembly and procession without permit.
Action:
Notes the Attorney-General's Chambers’s complicit role in its suppression of freedom of expression, assembly and procession and urges the Attorney-General's Chambers to stop prosecuting activists in Singapore;
Stands in solidarity with the persecuted democracy activists and censures the Singapore Government for its use of public institutions against the Singapore Democratic Party and its associates;
Urges the judiciary to adhere to its commitment to uphold justice in the city-state without prejudice, fear or favour;
Burma
Noting the unjust trial against Burmese pro-democracy leader and Nobel Peace Prize laureate Aung San Suu Kyi, LI condemns the Burmese authorities for sentencing Aung San Suu Kyi to a further 18 months based on illegitimate charges against her.
Condemns the continued detention of members of the opposition National League for Democracy and other activists fighting for democracy;
Noting with concern the continued human rights violations against the people in Burma including destroying more than 3,000 villages under the military’s campaign of killing, torture and rape against ethnic minorities, resulting in one million refugees having fled the country, 3,000 of which fled recently to escape from military attacks on Karen armed groups, whilst hundreds of thousands of internally displaced people are struggling to subsist in the jungles;
Noting the fact that rape is systematically employed as a weapon of war against ethnic minority women;
Noting the failure of the military junta to respond in a timely manner to international humanitarian aid and disaster relief to the tens of thousands of victims of Cyclone Nargis in Burma in May 2008;
Nothing the failure of the military junta to recognise the results of people’s choice shown in the elections held in 1990, when the National League for Democracy won over 80% of the votes. The military junta drafted the 2008 Constitution without participation of the opposition and the elected members of Parliament. The Constitution was further approved in a referendum held in an unfair and unjust manner. The military junta continued to push for the general elections in 2010 based on the illegitimate constitution.
Noting the military regime has failed to respond to the consecutive resolutions of the UN General Assembly since 1991, as well as reports of UN special rapporteurs on Burma, and demands of the UN Secretary General and his special envoys o Burma over the past 18 years.
Action:
Calls on the UN Secretary General Ban Ki Moon to coordinate a collective action plan. The international community, including the US and the EU, has stated the importance and urgency of the release of Aung San Suu Kyi and all political prisoners in Burma.
Calls on the Burmese military regime to work towards national reconciliation in an inclusive political process;
Unless the Burmese military junta cooperates and responds to international calls for the release of political prisoners and an inclusive political dialogue, LI urges the international community, particular the UN, to:
Impose stronger targeted sanctions against the military regime;
Impose arms embargoes on Burma in response to the military junta’s offences and gross violation against the civilians;
Conduct a mission of inquiry to investigate crimes against humanity in Burma
1st world singapore is being put on the same platform with majority of the 3rd world countries when comes to democracy n human rights!!
Fri 11 Sep 2009 6:58 AM
|
AN
Hi Jaslyn,
Not forgeting our 'First World Shitty Times' too! In the same league as Third World Country. Haha....
Fri 11 Sep 2009 4:03 PM
|
Disappointed Citizen - Is Singapore Liberal
there is no difference between 1st world nation versus 3rd world mafia. Is this the country we going to reside and call home?
Fri 11 Sep 2009 4:40 PM
|
Tan Tai Wei
Government's stance long been to ignore such appeals for human and moral rights as sentimental, amatuerish and unpractical, sending the message to our people that in real life, morality is only to be made use of - honesty is pursued only when it is "the best policy".
But then what sort of people are we being led to become, when "progress" is not coterminous with values and vision?
Even were it true that we are in the moral dilemma of having to choose, for the time being, our right to survival and life at the sacrifice of the moral respect of freedom and truth, we should not be so nonchalant about the sacrifice as to send the message that it doesn't matter at all.
Government should impress upon the people that moral rights matter, and we should weep for the hopefully only temporary loss of it, while pursuing what seems expedient for us at the moment.
Fri 11 Sep 2009 5:03 PM|
|
worldrights - Singapore's Rights Record to be Reviewed by UN Hum
In mid-2011, Singapore’s human rights record will be scrutinized by the UN Human Rights Council for the first time. Under a new procedure called the Universal Periodic Review (UPR), all 192 UN member states, including Singapore, must submit national reports to the UN Council on what steps they may have taken “to improve the human rights situations in their countries and to fulfill their human rights obligations” under the provisions of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which enumerates the human rights referred to in the UN Charter. Among those are freedom of expression and assembly, both internationally recognized human rights the Singapore government is bound to honor as a member of the UN.
According to the UN, the UPR “is one of the key elements of the [Human Rights Council] which reminds States of their responsibility to fully respect and implement all human rights and fundamental freedoms.” The principle objective of this human rights mechanism “is to improve the human rights situation in all countries and address human rights violations wherever they occur.”
Singapore NGOs, human rights defenders, as well as other stakeholders situated anywhere in the world, may participate in the periodic review process. They are permitted to provide information about the human rights record of Singapore, which “will be summarized” by the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights and included in the final review report.
In this way, Singapore will not escape international scrutiny for its poor human rights record, unless of course it chooses to withdraw from the United Nations entirely prior to 2011.
Fri 11 Sep 2009 6:13 PM
|
Robox - Congratulations
Congratulations SDP on your entry to LI; you are definitely in good company.
PAP's Singapore, by sharp contrast, keeps company with the basket cases of the world. That should tell us something.
But with Be Kind To PAP week coming up next week, I wonder if we can try and get them membership into FI (or Fascism International). They look very pathetic being seen hanging around with a bunch of pathetic dictators (like their friends in Burma) with no proper international organization to call their own.
Does anyone have any contacts with FI?
Fri 11 Sep 2009 6:15 PM
|
Robox - To Tan Tai Wei
Re: [color=red]"Government's stance long been to ignore such appeals for human and moral rights as sentimental, amatuerish and unpractical..."[/color]
Yeah, these are just hifalutin' ideas that they have demolished to such an extent that rescusitation has become such an uphill task.
Sat 12 Sep 2009 4:37 PM
|
Robox - The 8 Types Of Equality
There is a special significance in this story that I’d like to acknowledge.
This story is about the SDP’s entry to Liberal International (LI), liberalism being a centrist political ideology from the political left. Given Singapore’s political history of the massacre of all other political ideologies by Lee Kuan Yew except for his far right fascist one, it is actually quite a significant step when any individual or organization in Singapore would have the integrity to identify his/her/its political ideology as being alligned to the left.
At the same time, another major sign of a sea change taking place in Singapore: Did anyone note that in his NDR speech, Lee Hsien Loong was quite anxiously trying to distance himself (and his party) from the US Republican Party, because of their close links to the US Christian Right and US white supremacist groups? It’s too bad for the PAP because the links between the PAP and the same US Christian Right remain intact, and the damage that the link has always inflicted continues in other less obvious ways. (The PAP’s information gatherers must surely have been reading my posts here and elsewhere that made those links, including their links to their media cheerleaders in the conservative Washington Post.)
I was revisiting the political science topic on the 8 types of equality in the last few days, and realized just how much of it also explains the state of liberalism in Singapore, and in particular, the circumstances that the SDP finds itself in. In summary the 8 types of equality are:
1. Moral Equality
2. Legal Equality
3. Equality of Liberties
4. Formal Equality
5. Equality of Access
6. Equality of Opportunity
7. Equality of Outcome and
8. Affirmative Action (I’m not sure that I agree that this is a type of equality but rather an equalization procedure. Still corrective measures – affirmative action - for the gross inequalities that exist between the SDP - and other opposition parties - and the PAP can be part of this discussion.)
I’ll elaborate on each of the 8 types of equality, and how it explains the political condition we find ourselves in beginning in the next post – it’s just something we all already know but viewed from another angle.
Sat 12 Sep 2009 9:39 PM
|
Robox - The State Of Liberalism in S'pore (1)
[b]Moral Equality (or Equality of Worth)[/b]
This is best understood by considering its converse, inequality with [b]morality[/b] as its basis.
An example still topical in Singapore is that of people who believe homosexuality to be a moral issue and advocate for different treatment of LGBTs on that basis. Another example is the inequality perpetrated by racism: while the overt ‘moral’ justification for racism – racism is a punishment from God for being born black – is clearly becoming increasingly dated, racism isn’t. But I wonder how much of a hold the original ‘moral’ basis for racism still has.
In Singapore’s political context, Lee Kuan Yew has long ascribed a very high moral value to all conservative ideologies, especially the more extremist far right subtypes. That, to him, necessitated, the assigning of a ‘criminal’ status to political ideologies not perfectly alligned to his: the further left of his ideology one espouses, the more ‘criminal’ one’s status in Singapore.
Hence it’s not surprising that as the only political party that is firmly on the left, the SDP would also be the most criminalized of political parties.
This ‘moral’ basis for inequality is the preliminary inequality - the building block - towards inequalities and the power imbalances in all other areas – which I will also write briefly on – between the SDP and the PAP.
Moral Equality is also the basis for either equal or unequal treatment in feudal states.
Different writers may use different words even though they are describing what is conceptually the same thing. Moral Equality is sometimes spoken of as [b]Equality of Worth[/b]; it’s considered to be inherent to the person, and therefore justification for either equal or unequal treatment.
(...cont)
Sat 12 Sep 2009 7:23 PM
|
Robox - Addendum
Just an addendum to my post before this.
Different writers may use different words even though they are describing waht is conceptually the same thing.
Moral Equality is sometimes spoken of as Equality of Worth; it’s considered to be inherent to the person, and therfore justification for either equal or unequal treatment.
I'll be editing this information into my post earlier, and deleting this later.
Sat 12 Sep 2009 9:38 PM
|
Robox - The State Of Liberalism in S'pore (2)
[b]Legal Equality[/b]
This is easy: its [b]equality under the law[/b] - law must be written in such a way that it 'sounds' like its equal for everyone.
Recently, Singapore's attention had been brought to examples of what might appear to be inequality under the law: the highlighting in Parliament by the unschooled fascist lawyer Lee Kuan Yew of Articles 152 and 153.
A couple of very notable points from a political science perspective:
1. Constitutional articles aren't meant to be read in isolation from the rest of the Constitution; there must be compelling reasons for inequality in law to be explicitly made in any legal document. The Singapore Constitution's Articles 152 and 153 are by no means the only examples of 'legal inequality' in any British Commonwealth Constitution. Malaysia's makes explicit mention of Malays, India's of scheduled castes and tribes, and Canada's of Aboriginal Canadians.
All have compelling reasons to do so.
But when we talk of liberalism and, in particular the SDP, there are many laws that do in fact sound like they are equal to all political parties.
On paper.
There are however, others that do not: those that make explicit mention of 'the government' (ie. the ruling political party) as having greater privilege over other political parties not in government in many areas. The SDP has previously mentioned many Acts of Parliament that are discriminatory on the grounds that they are not written with a view to legal equality; these, in my opinion, would have to be constantly revisited.
[b]Equality of Liberties[/b]
This too is easy. It is the liberties provided for by law - drawing from legal equality above - and found in Section IV (Fundamental Liberties) of the Constitution.
Again, this is equality only on paper; we have been exposed to countless examples now of how 'equality of liberties" are denied to the SDP.
[b]Formal Equality[/b]
This type of equality draws from the one interpretation of legal equality; it is the committment to treat people exactly the same, and is best illustrated by examples.
Eg1. Everyone in line for theatre tickets for a show are treated exactly the same (in theory – haha, “lip service equality”): they name the show, choose their seats, pay for their tickets, collect their change and are thanked for their custom. Sometimes, depending on the context and circumstances, formal equality is the only thing that can be done.
Eg2. More controversial is this example. Every P1 student in a class is provided exactly the same levels of instruction, but more controversially the exact same levels of help – this would disregard any systemic disadvantage that might be interfering with any particular student's ability to perform to the same levels as his/her peers. Some have referred to this as “[b]equality of input[/b]” – which I don’t disagree with – to contrast it with equality of outcome.
Eg3. The closest that the SDP (and other opposition political parties) come to experience any semblance of formal equality is at our 9-day long elections periods held once every five years or so; in between electons, examples of any type of equality are next to impossible to find. Yet even during elections, the PAP does in fact find countless ways to create exactly the inequalities to disadvantage the SDP, especially during elections. By this I don't only mean the seemingly mandatory defamation suits against imagined infractions, but even in logistics - the various parties have better details than I on this so I will leave it to them to detail these.
Sat 12 Sep 2009 9:31 PM
|
Robox - Addendum 2
Again, I will be editing this into the post above.
Eg3. The closest that the SDP (and other opposition political parties) come to experience any semblance of formal equality is at our 9-day long elections periods held once every five years or so; in between electons, examples of any type of equality are next to impossible to find. Yet even during elections, the PAP does in fact find countless ways to create exactly the inequalities to disadvantage the SDP, especially, during elections. By this I don't only mean the seemingly mandatory defamation suits against imagined infractions, but even in logistics - the various parties have better details than I on this so I will leave it to them to detail these.
Sat 12 Sep 2009 9:54 PM
|
Robox - The State Of Liberalism in S'pore (3)
This is the shortest part but only because it is probably the most complex.
The three remaining types of equality, in my opinion, are not only self-evident but they need to be illustrated on a case by case basis and with actual examples; already I think that the latest blog on the lifting of the ban of the Singapore Rebel can provide an opportunity for such an analysis.
The three - because I'm unsure that the fourth is a "type" of equality - remaining types are:
1. Equality of Access
2. Equality of Opportunity
3. Equality of Outcome
The above three can provide a basis for corrective measures - ie. affirmative action - for the inequality created by the PAP to take place.
I actually also believe that all of this, an analysis of all the forms of (in)equality, can form the basis of proving that a entire slew of our laws are actually unconstituional.
Feeling sleepy and didn't write this post well, admittedly.
That's the word that those starting up Singanews are using to describe themselves; that's also the word that another Christian, Lui Tuck Yew - who helped craft the new Penal Code singling out gay men only for discrimination in the law together with his co-religionist Amy Khor - used to [self]-congratulate the 'mainstream media' (or MSM) for an imaginary competence.
Now, isn’t "mainstream" also what extremists who occupy the ultraconservative-to-fascist band on the political spectrum always like to claim they are? (I know this for a fact from being in N America from the early to mid-1990s at the height of gay activism, stemming from the AIDS crisis and the Reagan-Bush Sr years.)
This is actually not inconsistent with an aspect of ultraconservative ideologies (which include conservatism, ultraconservatism, and fascism but [i]not[/i] right-of-centre conservatism, which would be considered liberal democratic) where its proponents tend to hold up one group – usually themselves – as the ones whose values the rest of society should aspire to.
By taking a nice-sounding word like “mainstream” for themselves, what they attempt to do in effect is to leave the rest of us with no nice names to call ourselves; mainstream people are well balanced, and even perfectly-centred individuals not given to extremes.
Or so the mythology goes.
There are four fact-based reasons for rejecting Singanews' claim of being ‘mainstream’, and I say "fact-based" because I will be making use of the objective criteria used in political science here:
1. [b]The PAP does in fact subscribe to a political ideology[/b] despite pious protestations to the contrary. That ideology is anywhere between ultraconservatism-to-fascism exactly like the Thio Li-ann Christians – this is a strictly academic view.
2. Though he is hardly the first to do so, [b]Lui Tuck Yew refers to the SPH and mediacorp stables as "mainstream"[/b]. However, the 'MSM' has only ever reflected PAP thinking. The PAP pursues this policy because it has always wanted to shape the thinking of Singaporeans in its own image with the intended result of its thinking becoming the statistical norm in the Singapore population. That way, the PAP can then go on to claim that that statistical norm is also the “mainstream” view, which oh, just so happens to coincide with their political ideology, ultraconservatism-to-fascism on the political spectrum.
3. [b]Singanews has so far drawn their writers only from the Christian community and the 'mainstream' media[/b], the latter which can currently only be called the Hindu smokescreen. The people who are starting up Singanews have all of that same sense of arrogance about their moral superiority, “moral superiority” being the true subtext of “mainstream”. (This actually relates very neatly to my point of moral equality in an earlier post in this thread.)
4. However, [b]ultraconservatism-to-fascism can by no stretch of the imagination be considered to be political [u]centrism[/u][/b], which is the word we should actually be using instead of ‘mainstream’ when it comes to discussions of law, politics, political and socio-political news and commentary; centrism is [i]the[/i] word that professional journalists use.
[i](One way to know if you are politically a centrist is to ask yourself if you are appealed to the practises of constitutionalism, the rule of law, and rationality in legislation and its enforcement. Does any of the above describe the PAP and its scions?)[/i]
We would all be doing ourselves and Singapore a favour by refusing to refer to the SPH and Mediacorp stables as the mainstream media (MSM). I’m going to start by referring to them as the UCM (or ultraconservative media when they are ultraconservative) or FM (or fascist media when they are being fascist); I hope others will join me.
We should not even be feeling bullied that we are ‘less than moral’ for not espousing any of the views of the ‘mainstream’ Singanews – the contempt that ‘mainstream’ people have for those not like them, and the punitive ill treatment that awaits the victims that they compulsively wish to estrange [i]cannot[/i] be called moral.
I’m proud that I’m a political liberal with some social democratic leanings.
“To sit back hoping that some day, some way, someone will make things right is to go on feeding the crocodile, hoping that he will eat you last - but eat you he will.”
The Liberal International (LI) has submitted a written statement to the United Nations' Human Rights Council. The statement cites human rights violations in several countries including Singapore and Burma. (See below)
Support SDP , buy our 30th Anniversary Magazine here
