This was followed up with an interactive activity. Gillian Seetoh, a MARUAH member, facilitated this session. All participants were invited to take on different personas – for example, a 24 year old refugee, a retrenched father of three, or a son of a diplomat to name a few. Participants lined up on a starting line and a series of rights was read out. Each character determined if he or she could attain that right, and moved forward or backwards accordingly. Participants learned that despite playing the same persona, two individuals perceived their rights differently. Furthermore, this activity also highlighted the disparity in rights among different communities.

Lee Sze Yong, MARUAH’s secretary, subsequently introduced Human Rights in general, including the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) and the United Nations (UN). This presentation tied-in with the earlier interactive activity, and was aimed at strengthening the participants’ understanding of human rights, and why they matter.

Michael Switow, from ONE (Singapore), shared from the floor the Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (OP-ICESCR). Similar to other Optional Protocols, the OP-ICESCR enables complaints to be made to the UN if local remedies have been exhausted. The OP-ICESCR will enter into force when 10 countries ratify it.

The next segment introduced various thematic issues, including migrant worker rights and economic rights. John Gee, Immediate Past President of Transient Workers Count Too (TWC2) shared migrant-related issues in Singapore from the floor. He shared that many foreign workers still did not enjoy their right to rest/leisure time and also cited examples of their debt bondage.

The ASEAN Declaration on the Protection and Promotion of the Rights of Migrant Workers was highlighted and how it was found wanting in meeting the needs of migrant workers. Regional challenges included the need to deal with climate change refugees as well as transborder movement of people.

This included a segment on land rights by Leong Sze Hian, MARUAH’s treasurer. On homelessness, he pointed out that waiting times for public rental flats were shortened, but that occurred because of an increase in rental rates. He also pointed out that HDB flats are one of the most expensive public housing in the world. He highlighted that there were no statistics on how many homeless people there are in Singapore.

Additionally, many homeless people are unaware of where the shelters are. The homeless shelters have long waiting lists as well. So the pressing challenge is for the government to move from an economic pragmatic approach to a rights-based approach. (Read more here.)

Another thematic issue presented was Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR), by Mr Thomas Thomas, Executive Director of Singapore Compact. He highlighted that many local companies remained unaware of CSR, or wrongly equated it with philanthropy. “CSR is not about how you spend your money; it’s about how you make your money”, he remarked.

He then introduced the United Nations Global Compact’s ten principles, which besides human rights, also included areas like environment and anti-corruption. Mr Thomas also cited the ISO 26000 standard and its seven core subjects of social responsibility.

At the ASEAN level, the 2015 Roadmap notes the importance of CSR to ensure equitable development, as CSR should help create wealth for the community. He also mentioned the existence of an ASEAN CSR Network, which is an encouraging development. However, the challenge remains to change the mindset towards CSR. Additionally, it remains a challenge to get companies to report using the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI), which helps assess the sustainability of an organisation – economic, environmental, social and governance performance; the four key areas of sustainability.

The next thematic presentation was on child rights in Singapore, presented by Dilpreet Kaur, executive officer of MARUAH. The presentation introduced the Convention of the Rights of the Child (CRC), which Singapore ratified in 1995. Three reports have since been submitted to the CRC committee. Singapore has also ratified one of the two optional protocols; the Optional Protocol to CRC on the rights of the child on the involvement of children in armed conflict in 2009. However, it still holds on to reservations and declarations despite strong recommendations in concluding observations of the CRC committee.

Child rights issues in Singapore include what is the definition of a child with regards to age of criminality; children aged 16-18 years old are excluded from the Children and Young Person’s Act (CYPA) and healthcare and educational subsidies are only applicable to Singaporeans.

In 2004, the law was amended to allow children born overseas to Singaporean mothers to apply for citizenship; those born earlier have no access to this right. Also, the Compulsory Education Act excludes children with disabilities. So a rights-based approach, one that is based on universal, inalienable, indivisible, interdependent and equal and non-discriminatory rights is missing in the Singapore discourse.

On the ASEAN front, the establishment of the ASEAN Commission on the Promotion and Protection of the Rights of Women and Children (ACWC) is encouraging, though it is an inter-governmental entity, which needs to allow more participation from civil society. Nonetheless, organisations like Child Rights Coalition Asia (CRC Asia), a collaborative effort by non-governmental organisations, try to push for greater engagement between civil society and intergovernmental organisations like the ACWC.

Last but not least, we had a thematic presentation on the Southeast Asia Women’s Caucus on ASEAN (Women’s Caucus) by Nadzirah Samsudin from the Association of Women for Action and Research (AWARE). The group consists of 52 organisations from all ten ASEAN member countries as well as Timor Leste.

The Women’s Caucus focuses on several key issues, namely migration, violence against women, economic rights, political participation, discrimination in laws, policies and practices, as well as Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity (SOGI) issues by invoking principles under the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW).

Challenges include the lack of commitment by ASEAN on the prioritisation of women’s rights, insitutionalisation of civil society organisation participation, creating space for Women’s Caucus to meet with AICHR/ACWC/ASEAN Secretariat. Locally, there are perceptions of the limited impact of ASEAN to women on the ground level, and lack of ownership of Women’s Caucus.

The workshop concluded with an invitation for interested participants to join as volunteers. This series will continue with future updates on ASEAN matters. So keep in the loop by watching this space or joining our mailing list – email us at maruahsg@gmail.com.

Our Human Rights Day microsite has been updated with the winning entries of our Creative Writing & Poetry competition. Also see photos from the event.

http://hrd2011.wordpress.com/

MARUAH extends its thanks to all who submitted entries to the competition, and to everyone who attended the event.

(UPDATE: 3pm, 11 December)

Click link to view a newspaper report on our event by the Straits Times.

Why no “Occupy Singapore”?

According to Sze Hian, the first speaker, no one really knows what the movement is about but the movement is growing. He labelled it as a “fed-up” movement. People are tired of wages stagnating, inability to afford housing, healthcare and the scary prospects of not making ends meet.

In the local context, he quoted a Straits Times article “Some needy families not seeking assistance – Government working on better outreach and making it easier to get help” (ST, 19th Nov 2011) (link). The article highlighted a study conducted by MCYS; one of the findings was that many families preferred not to seek aid even though they were eligible. Could it be that the application process is onerous, and/or stigmatise the applicants? He also spoke about root causes, e.g. the lack of job creation, lack of secured re-employment prospects in the case of Singapore’s Retirement and Re-employment Act to be enacted in 2012 (link) as well as social security issues.

Investment banks, masters of the universe?

The following speaker, Jee Say, provided an economic background on the overall issue. A series of major events in the last 30 years resulted in an unchallenged rise of capitalism. This resulted in a constant pursuit of profit maximization, which only widened the income gap further and dispelled the myth of a trickle-down effect. The poor remained poor. Privatisation only allowed profits to rise, heightening the problems.

He also highlighted that capital markets resulted in overblown valuations. Using the Prospective model, earnings multiplied, expanding the market and increasing the number of similar enterprises. In the end, it became “what the market thinks”, making “investment banks masters of the universe”.

Lastly, globalisation contributed to the widening of the income gap via outsourcing of production and influx of foreign cheap labour. As a prelude to the question and answer session, Jee Say posed a question of “what’s next?”. He suggested that enterprises should be allowed to blossom together with a strong safety net provision. Northern Europe was cited as a possible example to learn from.

The attack of the white collar mafia

The last speaker, Braema, premised her presentation that economic rights are human rights. The systemic processes should be addressed because governance and economic structures are inter-twined. “Occupy Wall Street” became a symbol against the entire financial system, but many shifted the blame towards the politicians. This was the story of an elite group, not just the top one percent but 0.1 percent, or the “white collar mafia”.

The scarcity of jobs, outsourcing of labour, should make us question the underlying values behind this movement and not just the platform. Ms Braema suggested that the movement is partially a result of an intergenerational income divide; people needed to start caring for each other.

States and businesses alike should take ownership and there are different frameworks available. John Ruggie’s “Protect, Respect and Remedy” is one such framework. Governance is currently lacking in this area, and this can be improved by ensuring participation, transparency, effectiveness and efficiency, responsiveness, being consensus-oriented, providing equity and inclusiveness, and enforcing the rule of law. In conclusion, Braema stressed the importance of active citizenry and the need to be aware of our rights accorded by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR).

Questions and Answers

The floor was opened to questions and commentary for the panel. Among many, a question was posed if “Occupy Hong Lim” would succeed? The panelists agreed that it could, if the focus is on the right issues and policies. However, some felt that Singaporeans may be ignorant; this was attributed to the economic pragmatic approach undertaken by the PAP government. The people therefore have to realise that there are issues of distribution of income and opportunities are not fairly distributed either.

Another audience member commented on the inter-linkage between economic and political power. Political decisions, especially in the case of the United States, tend to be influenced by wealth, judging from its electoral system. In other countries like the Philippines and Indonesia, there is a serious predicament of the “white collar mafia”; politicians owning businesses and practising nepotism. So perhaps politics and business should not be allowed to mix; it only deepens helplessness of the masses in this case.

After a few more questions, the forum concluded with several questions to address “What next?”

• What is the value of my citizenry?
• Am I keeping up with information and owning my citizenry?
• Are we raising awareness of issues?
• Are we creating forum spaces, connecting with our MPs and making them accountable?

Join us for our next discussion on ASEAN Matters, December 17th 2011. Watch this space for more details.

Assistant Professor Jack Lee from the School of Law, Singapore Management University, brought the seminar attendees through the history of the ISA.

The Emergency Regulations Ordinance, introduced in 1948, had to be reviewed at regular intervals, and reissued if deemed necessary. This was then replaced by the Preservation of Public Security Ordinance, after the 1955 Hock Lee Bus riots. The ISA was enacted in Malaya in 1960. When Singapore joined Malaysia in 1963, the ISA was incorporated into Singapore law. After separation in 1965, the ISA was retained.

Article 149 of the Constitution was highlighted as the provision which provided for the validity of the ISA, notwithstanding that it was inconsistent with several important Articles in the Constitution.

The functions and makeup of the ISA Advisory Board were explained to the seminar attendees.

Asst. Prof. Lee also highlighted several important court cases (Lee Mau Seng v. Minister for Home Affairs, Chng Suan Tze v. Minister for Home Affairs, and Teo Soh Lung v. Minister for Home Affairs), and the subsequent legislative amendments to the ISA, including one which “freezed” the ISA in its state as at 13 July 1971.

Next, Mr Peter Low, a lawyer who represented several ISA detainees arrested under Operation Spectrum, provided a first-hand account of the legal and appeal processes after the arrests occurred. He highlighted the work by Mr Geoffrey Robertson QC, a human rights lawyer who led the team of lawyers representing the detainees.

Mr Low also provided a vivid account of what happened at Whitley detention centre. The Court had ordered for 4 of the detainees to be released. He brought the release papers to the detention centre, and was made to wait in a room. Later, he found out that the detainees were released and rearrested.

The next speaker, Mr Siew Kum Hong, Vice-President of MARUAH, took attendees through MARUAH’s stand on the issue of preventive detention, with a rights-based approach to the matter.

Mr Siew first highlighted the recent speech in Parliament by Minister for Home Affairs Teo Chee Hean. MARUAH took the view that preventive detention may be allowed, but only if proper safeguards are in place. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) contains specific articles (Article 9 & 10) relating to arbitrary detention.

He then cited a UK court case (A and others v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2004] UKHL 56) which contained a commentary by Lord Hoffmann.

“The real threat to the life of the nation, in the sense of a people living in accordance with its traditional laws and political values, comes not from terrorism but from laws such as these. That is the true measure of what terrorism may achieve. It is for Parliament to decide whether to give the terrorists such a victory.”

Mr Siew called for a open and public debate on the ISA, so that Singaporeans can deliberate on this important issue.

Question & Answer

A variety of questions were asked to the panel of speakers, moderated by Mr P N Balji, former Editor-In-Chief of TODAY newspaper.

One question was asked regarding the burden of proof, that is, whether it was decided on a balance of probability, or beyond reasonable doubt. The panel commented that as the ISA Advisory Board proceedings were not published, it was not possible to know.

Another question was on whether the detainees were tortured. Several ex-detainees at the seminar highlighted the treatment at the detention centre, and also their comments on the ISA.

One comment from a seminar attendee was that several incidents in the international arena seem to show that torture may not be a useful tool for extracting information.

One seminar attendee asked what was the major stumbling block in this issue. Mr Siew Kum Hong replied that it was fear. He explained that it would be difficult to organise a ISA seminar at venues like schools or libraries, as most public organisations are afraid of facilitating a discussion of this issue.

MARUAH would like to thank all the seminar attendees for their thoughtful questions, and also the 3 speakers for their contribution to the discussion of this issue.

The SPFI is an initiative aimed towards ensuring services and transfers to promote social protection as a tool for development and poverty eradication. States present acknowledged that everyone, as a member of the society, is entitled to equal access to social protection such as healthcare services among many others. It was further agreed upon that social protection is necessary to reduce the vulnerabilities of the disadvantaged groups in our societies.

In conclusion, there was consensus on the need to set up or strengthen existing social safety nets to protect people from falling through the nets via establishing a social protection floor. Some implementation procedures recommended included working towards ratifying the Convention of Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD); setting up consultative councils within each member state and ASEAN and working towards an ASEAN level declaration on establishing the SPFI within ASEAN.

The International Council on Social Welfare, a longstanding partner of the ASEAN GO NGO Forum, together with the ASEAN Secretariat and host country (Thailand), received feedback on a successful meeting and witnessed encouraging efforts by all parties towards establishing the SPFI.

MARUAH is a member of ICSW and MARUAH’s President, Braema Mathiaparanam, is the ICSW Regional President of Southeast Asia and Pacific.

Dr Kevin YL Tan, one of Singapore’s constitutional law experts, gave a concise review of the role of the president, culminating in a list of possible grey areas arising from the said presidential functions within the Constitution. Next, Mr Alex Au, blogger at Yawning Bread, analysed 2011 – the year of watershed elections and what could possibly be on the other side.

These discussions were moderated by Ms Braema Mathi, President of MARUAH, who kicked off the forum by framing the scope of discussion and emphasising the rights-based perspective taken by MARUAH.

The Elected Presidency powers has grey zones

Dr Kevin YL Tan (Adjunct Professor at the Faculty of Law, National University of Singapore and Adjunct Professor at the S Rajaratnam School of International Studies, Nanyang Technological University) reviewed and presented an analysis of the key constitutional provisions pertaining to the Elected President’s (EP) powers.

He highlighted that “the Constitution cannot lay down every single job of the President” and that it cannot work in the absence of common sense either. While he focussed on various provisions within the Constitution, namely Article 21, he also reviewed grey areas facing the EP.

In his review of key provisions stating the EP’s functions:

• Generally, the President must exercise his functions on the advice of the Cabinet or of a Minister acting under the general authority of the Cabinet.
• Granting of clemency in death penalty cases for example
• In certain cases the President must consult Council of Presidential Advisors (CPA) before exercising discretion. If he does not concur with the recommendations of the CPA, Parliament can override his decision. There is no Parliamentary override if he is not required by the Constitution to consult the CPA.
• Budgets that draw down on reserves
• Appointment of key public officers
• President has personal discretion in certain areas and may choose to consult the CPA
• Dissolution of Parliament
• Appointment of Prime Minister

The EP has many other roles, but they are not necessarily spelt out in the Constitution. It is in these other duties that some grey areas arise:

• The EP should generally support government policies but in matters of conscience, such as the death penalty, the EP might well publicly disagree with the Cabinet; it is a tough call.
• The EP cannot openly criticise government policies but what counts as criticism is vague.
• The EP is generally expected to support charity efforts nationwide but what if the charities are implicitly anti-government in stance?

Nonetheless, Dr Tan did make it clear that the EP is not supposed to be surrogate opposition or a proxy for those people who did not vote for the present government. The EP cannot direct investments or dismantle government companies. Furthermore, an “activist” EP can be removed for “intentional violation of the Constitution”.

Alternatively, a Government who is fed up with a meddlesome or obstructionist EP may circumvent his scrutiny by amending the law to reduce his powers. Even if the law is not changed, they can find other sources of income (e.g. increasing taxes,  selling state assets or granting monopoly/oligopoly of licenses) and thus not need to draw down on the reserves.

Dr Tan further mentioned that when the Government first conceived of the scheme, they had only one scenario in mind – the case of a good president controlling a bad government.

However, there are three other possible scenarios:

(a) bad president vs good government;

(b) bad president vs bad government; and

(c) good president vs good government.

In all these cases, gridlock can result.

Lego politics anyone?

Mr Alex Au continued with this discussion as his lead up point to the premise of his presentation. 2011 has been a year of watershed elections. Like Dr Tan, he agreed that grey areas exist, and it is precisely because there are grey areas that the EP has some flexibility to shape his office. That said, Au argued that much will also depend on the Cabinet’s reaction and public opinion.

According to Au, all candidates have acknowledged constitutional limits, but what distinguishes them is what they’re saying about how they would use what influence or moral authority the president will have, even on matters outside the areas where the EP has discretion. Au believes that voters need to know more about each candidate’s overall philosophy and personal principles, because voters are looking to elect someone whose principles resonate with theirs. However, not all candidates have been forthcoming in explaining their grounded beliefs.

Due to the constitutional limitations, the president alone will have limited impact as check and balance. Much more will depend on the composition of parliament and an active civil society, but if the EP is conscientious about his duties, he will play a useful role. Check and balance comes ultimately not by a single magic solution, but brick by brick, and the EP can be one.

Questions and Answers
One of the topics that was intensely argued was the criteria to be an EP. Is there a need to be so stringent? Is the $100 million dollar aspect crucial and hold any presidential value? Why can’t we do away with the Presidential Elections Committee (PEC)? The Media Release of PEC was also critiqued for their basis of why the four candidates were selected – because of integrity, good character and good reputation. What constitutes these qualities? And how does one measure it?

A member of the audience also asked the speakers of their personal views of the presidential candidates since the speakers have rubbed shoulders with a few if not all the candidates. MARUAH President cautioned that the Forum was not to endorse any candidature but to raise awareness on the role of the President. Dr Kevin Tan declined to comment but Alex Au proceeded to qualify that all the candidates are honourable men with a clear sense of mission, integrity and personal honour. He only had qualms with regards to what each candidate truly stood for and feels that still needs to be articulated more strongly as it is a question of affinity. People need to feel that their values can be aligned with the candidates.

The Role of the CPA was also raised. It was asked that since a President was elected by the people and pre-selected by the PEC with its role prescribed by the Constitution (with grey areas); what is the need of the CPA then. Both speakers agreed with the observations of the participant.

Postscript

MARUAH would like to thank both speakers, and also the attendees for staying throughout the forum. The event was a public awareness initiative by MARUAH and we look forward to planning more of such events in the future. It would not be possible without the continuous support of the public and supporters of MARUAH.

See Day 1 proceedings here.

In Day 2 of the workshop, speakers and participants discussed the following issues

• Government ministries should provide logistical support to the country representatives in the proposed ASEAN Human Rights Body (AHRB)
• Selection process for the country representatives to the AHRB should be transparent (Paris Principles)
• Existing National Human Rights Institutions (NHRIs) can provide training & capacity building
• Civil society will continue to adopt a watchdog role to monitor the performance of the AHRB
• Civil society will be the link between governments and the public
• Human rights issues should not merely be regarded as internal affairs, as there may be spillover effects on regional peace & security
• Regional standards should not be used to lower standards
• Role for AHRB beyond the regional – other regional bodies address national issues too, especially if national bodies are insufficient, or local remedies exhausted

In Day 1 of the workshop, speakers and participants discussed the following issues

• ASEAN Human Rights Body (AHRB) should not be a standalone, but part of a regime, including a set of norms
• Human rights should be mainstreamed across the 3 ASEAN pillars
• Concept of non-interference remains, but should be viewed objectively under international law, and not subjectively
• CSOs should engage the entire ASEAN structure, and not just the AHRB
• A thematic approach may be more acceptable to member states
• Rules of procedures will be drafted to guide the AHRB
• CSOs need to move quickly to engage states on the AHRB representatives selection process
• ASEAN Committee for Migrant Workers (ACMW) has not made a decision on how to deal with undocumented migrant workers
• Existing UN standards should be utilised to guide ASEAN (no need to reinvent the wheel)
• As all 10 ASEAN countries have ratified CEDAW and CRC, the ASEAN commission on the protection and promotion of the rights of women and children (ACWC) should have standards in-line with those UN conventions

Wee Yeong Wei, Braema Mathi and Alex Au (not in picture) represented Maruah Singapore at the celebrations organised by the Burmese community in Singapore to mark the 64th birthday of Nobel laureate Aung San Suu Kyi. The event was held at the Burmese temple on Tai Gin Road, on Sunday, 21 June 2009.

Singaporeans from all walks of life, joined by the Burmese community in Singapore, hold a peace vigil for the freedom of Aung San Suu Kyi.

More photos after the break…