We are troubled by the lack of transparency and apparent inequality in the different charges brought against two men (‘Apex court clears air on A-G’s power’; Wednesday).

Because of the different drug trafficking charges, Ramalingam Ravinthran faces the hangman, while Sundar Arujunan was sentenced to 20 years’ imprisonment and 24 strokes of the cane.

The Attorney-General should have to disclose his reasons for specific prosecutorial decisions. The Court of Appeal stated that the courts are not empowered to review the Attorney-General’s exercise of his prosecutorial discretion, provided he has not acted unlawfully or arbitrarily.

But unless the Attorney-General explains the reasons, an accused person will, practically speaking, never be able to prove that the Attorney-General has acted unlawfully or arbitrarily.

Public faith in the rule of law requires an appropriate level of transparency and accountability by all stakeholders, including the Attorney-General.

We are also concerned by the apparent lack of clear, objective and transparent criteria in prosecutorial decisions, even in capital cases like drug trafficking.

What are the factors that determine when to reduce charges? Is this affected in any way by cooperation in the prosecutorial process?

What happens if a cooperative offender, having escaped the gallows, later recants and changes his testimony, as apparently happened in this case?

While we condemn the drug trade which has devastated so many lives, even criminals deserve fair and equal treatment in the justice system.

Braema Mathi (Ms)
President
MARUAH

——————————-
http://www.straitstimes.com/STForum/Story/STIStory_689614.html
A case for discussion on death penalty

I REFER to last Wednesday’s article (‘Man accused of murder freed after 6 years in jail’).

This case supports MARUAH’s position that various aspects of the death penalty in Singapore contravene international human rights norms.

The principle of proportionality requires that the death penalty applies only to the most serious cases.

Singapore also allows someone to be convicted based solely on his confession to the police. It is difficult, if not impossible, for an accused person to prove that his confession was involuntary.

MARUAH calls for the death penalty to be unavailable in cases where the conviction was based only on a confession, as well as especially rigorous supervision of police interrogations in potential capital cases, such as having video-recording of interrogations.

More importantly, Ismil Kadar reportedly has an IQ of 73. MARUAH is troubled by the apparent lack of safeguards when interrogating persons with mental disabilities, and asks the police to clarify the protections that are in place.

More fundamentally, MARUAH believes that it would never be just to hang a person with mental disabilities based solely on his confession.
The recent introduction of criminal discovery, 13 years after the Law Society first called for it in 1998, has addressed the historical disadvantages to the defence in the criminal justice system. But we have to wonder if there had been potential miscarriages of justice before this.

The irreversibility of the death penalty demands the most rigorous of processes before someone is convicted and hanged.

MARUAH believes that Singapore needs to have an open and informed debate on whether the death penalty has a place here, and if so, in what shape and form.

MARUAH also calls for a moratorium on executions in the interim. Cases like Ismil’s demand that we do this, to ensure that Singapore never comes close to hanging an innocent person.

Peter Low
Death Penalty Committee
MARUAH (Working Group for an ASEAN Human Rights Mechanism, Singapore)

———————————————————–

5 May 2011

Mr Lee Seng Lup
Head, Elections Department
Singapore

Dear Sir,

Re: Proper voting procedures for visually-handicapped Singaporeans

I write on behalf of MARUAH (Working Group for an ASEAN Human Rights Mechanism, Singapore), a registered human rights NGO in Singapore. We are writing to you in respect of certain issues relating to the voting procedures applicable to visually-handicapped Singaporeans.

It has come to our attention that when visually-handicapped Singaporeans vote, their votes may not be secret, and they also have no assurance that their votes are being properly cast in accordance with their wishes. This appears to be causing significant concern within the visually-handicapped community in Singapore.

We understand that the current voting procedure for visually-handicapped Singaporeans requires the voter to inform the Presiding Officer of his/her choice, with the Presiding Officer then marking the ballot paper on behalf of the voter. This presents two issues, viz. the Presiding Officer becomes aware of how the voter had cast his/her vote, and there being no way to confirm whether or not the Presiding Officer had in fact marked the ballot paper in accordance with the voter’s instructions.

We note that this is in accordance with Section 42(5) of the Parliamentary Elections Act (Cap. 128) provides:

“The presiding officer, on the application of a voter who is incapacitated by blindness or other physical cause from voting in the manner prescribed by this Act, shall mark the ballot paper of the voter in the manner directed by the voter, and shall cause the ballot paper to be placed in the ballot box.”

Nevertheless we request that the Elections Department make available ballot papers in Braille for all polling stations for visually-handicapped persons, so that they can cast their own vote without requiring help from any official.

As the political parties and candidate numbers are limited, it would be reasonable, and not too costly, to print such these ballot papers so as to ensure that all Singaporeans, including the visually-handicapped, have the right to a secret ballot, and also give visually-handicapped Singaporeans the confidence that their votes are properly cast. This would also be consistent with international best practices on voting procedures, as practised in a number of developed countries.

If it is not practicable to implement this approach at this juncture, we propose, as an interim alternative measure, that a trusted companion be allowed to accompany the visually-handicapped voter and the Presiding Officer, throughout the process of voting. This would at least alleviate the voter’s concern about whether the ballot paper correctly reflects his/her choice, thereby enhancing the integrity of the voting process. This is also easily implemented without requiring any investment in additional resources or materials by the Elections Department.

To be clear, we do not doubt and we are not seeking to cast doubt on the integrity of the Presiding Officers. But in a democracy, it is important to ensure the independent verification of the accuracy of the voter’s ballot, which will strengthen Singaporeans’ confidence in the integrity of the voting process.

We hope that the Elections Department can implement at least the above interim alternative measure on Polling Day, so as to ensure that all Singaporeans have the same voting rights in these watershed General Elections.

Yours sincerely,

Braema Mathi
President, MARUAH

Please see the attachment for more details.

Welcome Letter to MARUAH – 6 Mar 09

‘NO ONE SOLUTION’

A balance has to be struck between individual rights and overall good of society

Monday • June 9, 2008

Letter from :PROFESSOR WALTER WOON:Attorney-General

I REFER to the letter “Keep our door open to ideas” by Siew Kum Hong(June 6).

Mr Siew has misunderstood me. I surmise from his letter that he was not present at my talk.

In my address at the launch of the Law Society’s Public and International Law Committee, I said that for some people human rights has become a religion. This religion, like so many others, has its fanatics who display all the hypocrisy and zealotry of religious bigots.

They believe that there is only one permissible view of human rights — theirs. They assume that when they decide what human rights are, that decision is for the rest of humanity.

I gave the example of those who think that the right to free expression means that one can insult the Prophet of a great religion with impunity. I asked rhetorically, can we accept this in our society?

I pointed out that all our moral codes emphasise obligations rather than rights: The rule is “thou shalt not steal” and not “thou hast a right to property”.

I also said that the balance between rights and obligations is one for each society to decide.

Let me make my position clear lest I be misunderstood again. Human rights are a key component of good governance. But there is no consensus on where the line is to be drawn between the rights of an individual and the good of the society as a whole.

Human rights fanatics think that their opinion is the standard to which the rest of humanity must conform to and that they are entitled to issue reports criticising those who hold a different view. These are people who evidently believe that they and their values represent the apex of human moral development.

There is no one solution that will fit all societies.

I took pains to say that we must decide for ourselves where we draw the line between individual rights and the common good, because if we get it wrong, it will be our children who will pay the price. But that is a debate for us, not for those who know nothing of our history, culture or values and who do not have our interests at heart.

I have never dismissed the sincerely-held views of anyone who is genuinely interested in dialogue. A constructive debate about our obligations to our fellow citizens and the guests who live among us is healthy.

That is why I wholeheartedly supported the Law Society’s initiative in creating a Public and International Law Committee and having a series of lectures on the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

Human rights key to good governance but…
I REFER to last Friday’s letter, ‘Human-rights fanatics is what Singapore needs’ by Mrs Constance Singam. She misunderstands me completely. I surmise from her letter that she was not at my talk. Otherwise, she would have known that I did not attack human-rights activists.

In my address at the launch of the Law Society’s Public and International Law Committee, I said that for some people, human rights have become a religion. This religion, like so many others, has its fanatics who display all the hypocrisy and zealotry of religious bigots.

They believe that there is only one permissible view of human rights – theirs. They assume that when they decide what human rights are, that decision is a decision for the rest of humanity.

I gave the example of those who think that the right to free expression means that one can insult the Prophet of a great religion with impunity. I asked rhetorically, can we accept this in our society?

I pointed out that all our moral codes emphasise obligations rather than rights: the rule is ‘thou shalt not steal’ and not ‘thou hast a right to property’. I further said that the balance between rights and obligations is one for each society to decide.

Lest I be misunderstood again, let me make my position clear. Human rights are a key component of good governance. But there is no consensus on where the line is to be drawn between the rights of an individual and the good of the society as a whole.

Human-rights fanatics think that their opinion is the standard to which the rest of humanity must conform and that they are entitled to issue reports criticising those who hold a different view. These are people who evidently believe that they and their values represent the apex of human moral development.

There is no one solution that will fit all societies. I took pains to say – and Mrs Singam would have known this had she attended the talk – that we must decide for ourselves what is right for our society because, if we get it wrong, it will be our children who will pay the price.

A constructive dialogue on what our obligations are to our fellow citizens and the guests who live among us is healthy. We must decide where we draw the line between individual rights and the common good.

But that is a debate for us, not for those who know nothing of our history, culture or values and who do not have our interests at heart.

That is why I wholeheartedly supported the Law Society’s initiative in creating a Public and International Law Committee and having a series of lectures on the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

Professor Walter Woon
Attorney-General

MARUAH has responded to the speech made by the Attorney-General at the recent launch of the Law Society Public and International Law Committee, through a letter published in Today newspaper, 5 June 2008:

I refer to the article “Politics, law and human rights ‘fanatics’: AG Walter Woon” (Today, 30 May 2008).

The Attorney-General, Prof Walter Woon, reportedly said that human rights has become a “religion among some people” for whom “it’s all hypocrisy and fanaticism”, that we should not confuse public law with politics, and that some people assume that their definition of human rights is the decision of the rest of humanity.

As a group that seeks to work on issues related to the establishment of the ASEAN human rights body from a Singapore perspective, MARUAH finds the A-G’s reported statements regrettable. Such a dismissal of sincerely-held views, even those expressed immoderately, is not helpful to engagement between a government and its citizens.

History tells us that ardent campaigners who were highly controversial in their day must be thanked for much of today’s social progress. While controversial causes are not necessarily right, our progress as a society depends on us keeping the door open to ideas, and not peremptorily dismissing ideas and their proponents with pejorative language.

MARUAH also believes that no single group of persons – including officials – has the right to conclusively define human rights for the rest of society. The definition of human rights evolves as society changes.

This evolution is stunted if dissentients are cast as troublemakers pursuing their own causes under the guise of human rights. Rather than criticizing dissentients, we should see them as making a positive contribution to our understanding and conceptualization of what human rights means to Singaporeans.

Finally, it is not helpful to view public law in complete isolation from politics. After all, politics must be conducted within the framework of the law, and political decisions must be lawful. Similarly, the law does not exist in a vacuum divorced from the politics of the day.

Siew Kum Hong
Member, Pro-Tem Committee
MARUAH

June 6, 2008
Human-rights ‘fanatics’ is what S’pore needs
PROFESSOR Walter Woon’s attack on human-rights activists as ‘fanatics’ is very disturbing (A-G cautions against human rights becoming a ‘religion’ with fanatics, May 31). Surprisingly (although perhaps not) it comes at a time when the Singapore Government itself is trying to promote the Asean Regional Mechanism on Human Rights.

Last year, prior to the signing of the Asean Charter in November, Professor Woon and the then Asean Secretary-General Ong Keng Yong declared at the Asean Civil Society Conference that ‘the principles of good governance, rule of law and democracy will be enshrined as ‘aspirational goals’ in the Asean Charter (Asean Charter to turn region into community, Oct 28, 2007)’.

My questions are: What did they mean by ‘aspirational goals’? Who set the views of what is acceptable and what’s not? Who defines the ideals of human rights in a ‘democracy’?

Surely the obvious answer is that in a democracy, views and rights become accepted and enshrined through an on-going process of negotiation between governments and its citizens.

We have seen over many years Singapore officialdom’s strategy of undermining the passionately held views of advocates of human rights, for instance, ‘liberal democratic views’ and ‘feminism’ have been dismissed as ‘corrupt Western views’.

When the Association of Women for Action and Research (Aware) started in 1985, its members were considered by the Government and conservatives to be disruptive, bra-burning ‘fanatics’ that would destroy the family. More than 20 years later, Aware has proven itself as a positive advocate for women and families in Singapore. ‘Fanatics’ – or in our opinion advocates – are often exactly what our society needs.

I note, not surprisingly, the contradiction between the dismissal of human-rights activists as ‘fanatics’ and Singapore officialdom’s promotion of ‘human rights’.

The strong words of dismissal are inappropriate and unbecoming in the context of the time and circumstances, especially seeing the continued and appalling degradation of our domestic workers (Couple jailed for maid abuse, June 4) and the neglect and suffering in Myanmar.

Considering the limitations imposed on civil society activism in Singapore and the official ambivalence over the term ‘human rights’, I applaud and celebrate the so-called ‘fanatics’ of human rights for the work they do.

Constance Singam
President, Aware