On 19th May 2012, MARUAH will join several other organisations in commemorating the 25th anniversary of the arrest of 24 persons during Operation Spectrum under the Internal Security Act (ISA), for an alleged Marxist conspiracy.

The ISA allows detention without trial (for potentially indefinite periods). Prior to the 1987 arrests, the ISA was also used in 1963 (Operation Cold Store) and 1970s. Chia Thye Poh was detained for 23 years under the ISA, from 1966 to 1989. [Note: Mr Chia was placed under house arrest in Sentosa from 1989 to 1998] More recently, the ISA has been used to detain Jemaah Islamiyah alleged terrorists from 2001 onwards. None of the ISA detainees have ever been tried or convicted in a court of law.

Between 1987 and 1988 the following were detained under Operation Spectrum which has also come to be known as the Marxist Conspiracy.

1. Vincent Cheng Kim Chuan,
2. Teo Soh Lung,
3. Kevin de Souza,
4. Wong Souk Yee,
5. Tang Lay Lee,
6. Ng Bee Leng,
7. Jenny Chin Lai Ching,
8. Kenneth Tsang Chi Seng,
9. Chung Lai Mei,
10. Mah Lee Lin,
11. Low Yit Leng,
12. Tan Tee Seng,
13. Teresa Lim Li Kok,
14. Chia Boon Tai,
15. Tay Hong Seng
16. William Yap Hon Ngian
17. Tang Fong Har,
18. Chng Suan Tze,
19. Chew Kheng Chuan,
20. Ronnie Ng Soon Hiang,
21. Fan Wan Peng,
22. Nur Effendi Sahid
23. Francis Seow
24. Patrick Seong

This was the timeline of what happened
(from http://infopedia.nl.sg/articles/SIP_1578_2009-10-31.html)

Timeline
May 1987 : Sixteen persons are arrested under the ISA. Government says detainees are involved in a Marxist conspiracy.
Jun 1987 : Lee Kuan Yew meets Archbishop Yong and Catholic leaders. Four of the original 16 detainees are released. Six more people are arrested.
Sep 1987 : Teo and six others are freed.
Dec 1987 : All detainees freed except for Cheng.
Apr 1988 : Nine detainees issue statement denying involvement in Marxist plot and alleging ill-treatment while under detention. Eight are re-arrested. Teo files writ of habeas corpus.
Jun 1988 : Four more detainees freed. Teo, Tsang, Wong and Kevin de Souza are issued with one-year detention orders. They begin habeas corpus proceedings.
Aug 1988 : Teo’s habeas corpus dismissed. She files appeal to Court of Appeal.
Sep 1988 : Appeal is heard.
Dec 1988 : Court of Appeal orders four detainees released but are re-arrested immediately.
Feb 1989 : Two more detainees freed.
Mar 1989 : New writ of habeas corpus hearing on Teo’s re-detention. Three other detainees withdraw their writs and are released.
Apr 1989 : Teo’s habeas corpus application is dismissed. She appeals.
Jun 1989 : Detention orders for Teo and Cheng extended for one year. Cheng files writ of habeas corpus.
Feb 1990 : Cheng’s application is dismissed.
Apr 1990 : Teo’s appeal is dismissed.
Jun 1990 : Teo and Cheng are released.

The detainees were accused of being Marxists or followers of such an ideology that could pose a security threat to the country.

What is Marxism?

“the political, economic, and social principles and policies advocated by Marx; especially : a theory and practice of socialism including the labor theory of value, dialectical materialism, the class struggle, and dictatorship of the proletariat until the establishment of a classless society”
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/marxism

“The fundamental ideology ofcommunism, it holds that all people are entitled to enjoy the fruits of their labour but are prevented from doing so in a capitalist economic system, which divides society into two classes: nonowning workers and nonworking owners. Marx called the resulting situation “alienation,” and he said that when the workers repossessed the fruits of their labour, alienation would be overcome and class divisions would cease.”
http://www.britannica.com.sg/government/marxism-371443.html

To date, the Government has never clearly detailed the ideology being followed by the alleged Marxist conspirators , or the specific acts that had genuinely threatened national security. Even if they had subscribed to some form of Marxism, MARUAH contends that the use of the ISA would still not have been justified, because the ISA is meant to address conduct and not just political beliefs. An open and transparent hearing on or inquiry into their activities, such as a criminal trial in open court, would have been a more appropriate response by the Government.

MARUAH notes that many of the accounts that have since emerged suggests that most, if not all, of the detainees had merely been activists who had cared for the well-being of society and had been deeply involved in aiding marginalized communities. They had raised awareness, conducted case advocacy and questioned the adequacy of legal protection for vulnerable workers. There is no public evidence, other than their confessions (the voluntariness of which has been cast into doubt), to suggest anything more sinister.

This incident, known as Operation Spectrum, continues to cast a long shadow of Singapore politics and civil society. 22 activists and their two lawyers were detained under the ISA and were then pronounced as a security threat and as Marxists. Yet, the uncomfortable question of whether it was a fair process, remains unresolved and continues to be the elephant in the room of Singapore’s political history.

On the occasion of the 25th anniversary of this case, MARUAH calls for this open wound in our nation’s psyche to be considered, for the first time, in an open hearing, with a Commission of Inquiry to be established to transparently determine the facts in this case.

We also reiterate our call for a public review on whether the ISA can remain relevant in the current form when there are possibilties of effecting anti-terrorism laws to deal with security threats. We ask as we did in the submission made to the Human Rights Council during the Universal Periodic Review ( UPR) reporting on Singapore that it would be better for us to amend the ISA to observe the following:-

1. comply with international norms and best practices on preventive detention, including strict limitations on the maximum duration of detention.
2. reinstate the courts’ power to review the Government’s detention decisions on substantive grounds
3. ensure that the advisory bodies under the ISA be institutionally independent from the executive, and empowered to decide on substantive issues including whether the detainee in question does in fact pose the type of exceptional danger justifying preventive detention and whether there are any other satisfactory methods of dealing with the detainee besides detention without trial;
4. make it mandatory to comply with the decisions of such independent advisories bodies
5. comply with the requirements of due process and a fair trial to the maximum extent practicable, including allowing the detainee and his or her counsel to review evidence against him or her unless there is clear, objective evidence that doing so would materially compromise any person’s security or safety;
6. extend the independent advisory bodies’ jurisdiction and powers to include overseeing the appropriate conditions of detention for each detainee, with the objective of ensuring that no detainee is put in fear of torture, or inhuman or degrading treatment, physical or psychological, of any kind.

The above recommendations can be found in MARUAH’s submission to the United Nations, when Singapore’s human rights was scrutinised under the Universal Periodic Review.

The ISA is a blunt approach to counter terrorism. Instead, a anti-terrorism approach should include the following (from UN factsheet (PDF) on Human Rights, Terrorism and Counter-terrorism)

1. measures to address the conditions conducive to the spread of terrorism, including the lack of rule of law and violations of human rights, ethnic, national and religious discrimination, political exclusion, and socio-economic marginalization;
2. foster the active participation and leadership of civil society;
3. condemn human rights violations, prohibit them in national law, promptly investigate and prosecute them, and prevent them;
4. give due attention to the rights of victims of human rights violations, for instance through restitution and compensation

Arbitrary detention is a serious violation of human rights. Arrests under the ISA go against core values of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) which contains specific articles (Article 9 & 10) relating to arbitrary detention.

Article 9.
No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile.

Article 10.
Everyone is entitled in full equality to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, in the determination of his rights and obligations and of any criminal charge against him.

So join us at Speakers’ Corner this Saturday [19th May 2012, 4pm] to commemorate the 25th anniversary of the ISA arrests under the alleged Marxist conspiracy. There will be an exhibition, booths, and sharing sessions by ex-detainees and civil society representatives. More details at the event website.

Today is World Press Freedom Day. It is important that we acknowledge this date to

1. celebrate the fundamental principles of press freedom;
2. assess the state of press freedom throughout the world;
3. defend the media from attacks on their independence;
4. pay tribute to journalists who have lost their lives in the line of duty.

As a human rights advocacy group, MARUAH has reported on limited media freedom in Singapore at the Human Rights Council through the Universal Periodic Review (UPR) process last year.

MARUAH calls upon the Singapore government to also observe this day and in doing so, consider review of the Newspaper and Printing Presses Act (NPPA) to give freedom to the media.The government enacted the Newspapers and Printing Presses Act in 1974, implementing a regime whereby all printing presses had to be licensed and all newspapers had to apply for an annual permit, all subject to the Minister’s discretion¹. The stated aim of the law was to prevent newspapers from being funded by foreign sources with hidden agendas. The effect was to essentially throttle the previously lively media scene.

In 1984, Singapore Press Holdings Ltd (SPH) was established through the merger of three newspaper publishers. The Government has the power to control the appointment of the SPH management, by way of special management shares with enhanced voting powers. SPH became and remains the dominant newspaper publisher in Singapore; it was also the sole newspaper publisher after the Singapore Monitor closed in 1985, until MediaCorp Pte Ltd began publishing the TODAY newspaper (which SPH currently owns 40% of) in 2000.

The Act was further amended in 1986, to empower the Minister to gazette any foreign newspaper as “a newspaper engaging in the domestic politics of Singapore” and thereafter restrict the sale and distribution of such newspapers.²

The right to information is a fundamental human right. Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights reads:

“Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.”

It is immediately apparent that the Act has seriously constrained the press in Singapore, with a corresponding restriction on individuals’ right to information. With Malaysia moving to repeal its own version of the Act, the time has come for Singapore to also review and modernise its own press laws.

MARUAH also urges the Government to unequivocally state that it does not intend to tighten regulation of the Internet, and accordingly to acknowledge that a new code of conduct for online behaviour is not necessary. Contrary to Government assertions, the online community has been able to self-regulate, as shown by, for instance, the very vocal condemnations of racist comments in Singapore. More regulation is not necessary, and will likely lead to some chilling of free speech in Singapore.

In commemorating this day, MARUAH would also like to raise concern over a grave reality in our region. The Philippines has the highest number of journalists killed within the ASEAN community and possibly globally. According to the Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ)’s annual Impunity Index³, which identifies countries where journalists are murdered regularly and governments fail to solve the crimes, Philippines is ranked third globally with 56 unresolved murders.

MARUAH emphasises that journalists and their work must be protected as World Press Freedom Day is a reminder on the sacred values of a free press to nurture the mind and spirit of the people. Unpunished violence also often results in vast self-censorship, which is also undesirable.

This year’s observance theme is New Voices: Media Freedom Helping to Transform Societies. More information is available on this UN website.

Footnotes
1. Section 3(1) of the Newspapers and Printing Presses Act
2. Sections 21 and 22 of the Newspapers and Printing Presses Act. To read the rest of COSINGO’s UPR report, please click here.
3. Impunity is a key indicator in assessing levels of press freedom and free expression in nations worldwide.

Today is Labour Day. MARUAH would like to wish all Singaporean and foreign workers a happy Labour Day!

We would like to appreciate the work put in, on a daily basis, by all in Singapore. A worker needs to be respected not just on May 1st but everyday.

The government is increasing its efforts to offer more protection and security to workers. In the recent year these are some of the efforts:

1. More measures to enable workers to upgrade skills,
2. More measures to protect workers with regard to Workplace Safety and Health,
3. Incentives to hire persons with disabilities (PWDs),
4. Legislation on mandatory day-off for Foreign Domestic Workers,
5. Anti-discrimination campaign in workplaces by fair employment watchdog, the Tripartite Alliance for Fair Employment Practices (TAFEP)

However, MARUAH is deeply concerned about two issues this Labour Day and seeks remedial action for two communities that need protection the most.

The first issue is the protection of the rights of our lower-end wage earners.

Earning SGD$1,500 per month is just not enough. According to the article “Mindset Change Needed to Help Low-wage Workers” (Straits Times, Feb 7, 2012), government figures show that there were 236,300 Singaporeans and residents who earned a gross income of less than $1,000 per month as of June last year, up from 218,700 a decade earlier. [i] Looking at household income figures, the situation is similar as 2010 figures show more than 100,000 households with $1,400 monthly income.

While the pool of people earning less than $1,500 is getting larger, latest available expenditure figures, covering 2007/2008, show that Singaporean households in the bottom fifth of the income scale, actually needed around $1,700 a month to cover basic costs of living like food and utilities. But they were earning an average of only $1,274 per month at that time.

There is a disconnect. For the worker and his/her family, it has dire consequences on the ground as they simply cannot make ends meet and care for their family well. This is an area of grave concern and the situation will get worse unless we look at adequate social security for this community.

Wages of our lower-end workers have slid downwards . The same ST article reported that the median gross wage for cleaners and labourers was $1,277 in 2000. Ten years later, instead of rising, the wages fell to $960. For cleaners of industrial buildings, the median gross wage is even lower, at around $600 in 2010.

There have been recent calls for a minimum wage to be instituted, to protect lower-end workers against exploitation. MARUAH joins this call and urges the government to look into the right of all workers to fair wages. This is one of the rights within the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), which Singapore, being a member of the United Nations, has pledged to achieve.

Article 23 of the UDHR states:-

(1) Everyone has the right to work, to free choice of employment, to just and favourable conditions of work and to protection against unemployment.

(2) Everyone, without any discrimination, has the right to equal pay for equal work.

(3) Everyone who works has the right to just and favourable remuneration ensuring for himself and his family an existence worthy of human dignity, and supplemented, if necessary, by other means of social protection.

(4) Everyone has the right to form and to join trade unions for the protection of his interests.

The second issue that MARUAH highlights here is the protection for the more than 200,000 foreign domestic workers who work in our homes.

We urge the government to ban the cleaning of windows (outside frames) in high-rise homes. Employers, as in any workplace have a duty to protect the worker against harm and even self-harm (when workers can be overly enthusiastic).

A country of origin has imposed rules to protect its workers from a safety perspective. As a country that takes pride in being part of an international community that vigorously promotes safety at worksites, the current situation is unacceptable. The home is also a worksite in this scenario, and MARUAH urges the government to put a stop to these unnecessary deaths – already one too many.

This Labour Day, MARUAH acknowledges the efforts by the government to protect workers. But we also ask that the government consider what we see as two critical areas that need immediate attention to ensure that all workers live in dignity and are protected.

We wish all Singaporeans and foreigners who work here an enjoyable May Day.

Cheers,

From all us @ MARUAH

Footnote
[i] The figure excludes incomes of full-time national servicemen.

MARUAH recognises that individuals, including public figures, have a right to protect their reputations. However, that right needs to be balanced against the right to free speech.

When political leaders threaten defamation lawsuits against internet blogs and forums, there will invariably be a “chilling effect” on online political discourse. Such actions to protect one’s reputation carries a heavier “footprint” than necessary, and more appropriate responses to defamatory comments are possible, in today’s Web 2.0 world.

We would encourage politicians who believe that they have been defamed, to write to the site owner directly to inform the owner; ask for the comment to be taken down; and request for the publication of the politician’s own statement. We believe that blog and forum owners, including those operating anonymously, would generally respond positively to a polite and cogently-worded request. There is no need to engage lawyers or threaten lawsuits to rebut defamatory comments.

MARUAH urges politicians, who seek to build a better Singapore for Singaporeans, to step back and take a broader big-picture perspective. It is incumbent on politicians to refrain from unnecessarily restricting the overall space for political speech in Singapore.

In any case, history demonstrates the poor record of defamation lawsuits in quelling rumours and speculation. TR Emeritus apologised to the Prime Minister over comments that were first made a decade ago, despite these comments having been the subject of repeated defamation lawsuits. These past lawsuits have clearly not been effective in eliminating the speculations.

MARUAH does not condone the publication of defamatory statements. This is especially so, if it is done as part of an organised, deliberate campaign to destroy the reputation of a public figure.

But just as society has a responsibility to protect the reputations of individuals against illegitimate attack, society should also protect the freedom of expression. And when or if a politician has a valid cause of action, he/she, as a leader of Singapore, also has a moral obligation to avoid unnecessarily limiting freedom of speech to clear his/her good name.

We urge that this letter be taken in the spirit that it is written as we mature as a society and walk this fine balance between rights and responsibilities.

Ms Braema Mathi
President
MARUAH Singapore

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

The act of execution is inhumane in itself.  Being on Death Row inflicts extreme psychological suffering not only on the prisoner, but also on the family. It also impacts society – dehumanising us as we leave it to the State to mete out the extreme punishment. If there is a miscarriage of justice, the death penalty ensures that there is no room for any correction as it is irreversible and irreparable.

On the World Day Against the Death Penalty, MARUAH joins many other global voices to ask for a review and more immediately, a moratorium on the death penalty. MARUAH believes that the death penalty is inconsistent with prevailing customary international law, but accepts that Singapore and Singaporeans may not be ready to agree to a total repeal of the death penalty. However, the mandatory death penalty, especially in drug cases, clearly breaches human rights norms, and so must be immediately repealed. Read more here on our earlier report to the Human Rights Council for the Universal Periodic Review.

MARUAH believes that Singapore needs more debates and education on the death penalty so that citizens understand that this is not a humane way to punish and that the death penalty constitutes a violation to the right to be free from cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment.

So we join the voices of many around the world and in Singapore to call for the abolishment of the death penalty.  Most countries – 139 – have signed to abolish the death penalty. Globally, more countries are addressing this issue. There was record support achieved at the United Nations General Assembly where the Resolution on the Moratorium on the Use of Death Penalty was adopted by an increased number of states at the end of last year. Singapore was not one of them.

The work ahead is vast. But there is clarity that the death penalty – the mandatory form – has no place in our society. We repeat our call for a moratorium on the mandatory death penalty and a review of this form of punishment.

For further information: visit the World Coalition Against the Death Penalty website. This is a coalition of 121 bar associations, trade unions, local governments and non-governmental organisations working to abolish the death penalty internationally. Also visit information from the UK Foreign Office here and also view the podcasts reviewing the theme of minimal standards on the death penalty and opportunities for future action on the death penalty.

For list of programmes taking place around the world on this World Day, please visit: www.worldcoalition.org/worldday.

MARUAH Singapore has made an oral statement at the United Nations, as the report on Singapore’s human rights was adopted under the Universal Periodic Review (UPR) process at the 18th session of the Human Rights Council.

Ms Braema Mathi, President of MARUAH, made the first Non-Governmental Organisation (NGO) oral statement under the banner of ARTICLE 19, an international NGO focusing on freedom of expression and information.

In the oral statement, MARUAH highlighted that the 2 recent elections in Singapore have shown that the people want to be engaged; the government too has said that. Hence, it is disheartening that they have not supported the core recommendations on civil and political rights.

MARUAH urged the Singapore government to focus on civil and political rights as a priority over the next 4-year cycle of the UPR process.

The following countries and organisations made oral statements during the session.

Countries

1.      Vietnam

2.      Brunei

3.      Algeria

4.      Thailand

5.      Indonesia

6.      Laos

7.      Myanmar

8.      Malaysia

9.      Cambodia

10.   India

11.   United States

12.   Saudi Arabia

Organisations

1.      Article 19/MARUAH

2.      Human Rights Watch

3.      Conscience and Peace Tax International

4.      Asian Forum for Human Rights and Development (FORUM-ASIA)/Thinkcentre

5.      International Federation for Human Rights (FIDH)

6.      Amnesty International

The full text of MARUAH’s oral statement can be found in the attached PDF.

The video recording of MARUAH’s oral statement can be found at the link below.

http://www.unmultimedia.org/tv/webcast/2011/09/article-19-consideration-of-singapore-upr-reports-21st-plenary-meeting.html

IMMEDIATE RELEASE

MARUAH’s Initial Response to Singapore’s 1^st Universal Periodic Review

Geneva, 6 May 2011 – MARUAH applauds the government’s decision to ratify by 2012 the Convention on the Rights of People with Disabilities. MARUAH hopes this can be done without any reservations.

Ambassador Ong Keng Yong, Singapore’s Ambassador-at-Large, as head of the Singapore delegation, made this announcement at Singapore’s first Universal Periodic Review (UPR) report at the Human Rights Council that was held today, 6 May 2011.

The three-hour session saw 94 countries signing on to speak and make presentations on Singapore. As each country is allowed only a 2-minute intervention under the UPR system at the UN Human Rights Council system, a third of the countries were not able to make their presentations.

MARUAH is pleased with the wide range of topics that were raised by the various countries which have been diligent in keeping a watch on Singapore’s human rights track record to date. Common socio-cultural issues that came up were concerns over protection of migrant workers, reservations on CEDAW ( Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women) and the CRC (Convention the Rights of the Child), corporal punishment, disabilities, people in need, and meeting housing needs of the people.

The civil and political right issues that came up were primarily on increasing spaces for citizen expression, a review of the Newspapers and Printing Presses Act, a moratorium on the death penalty, instituting a human rights body, signing onto the international human rights treaties  such as the International Convention on Civil and Political Rights, International Convention on the Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, International Convention Against Torture and International Convention to Eliminate Racial Discrimination.

There was also a call made by countries to protect migrant workers through legal means and to ratify the Convention on the Protection of Migrant Workers and their Families. Some countries such as Slovenia asked that ‘preventive detention’ under the Internal Security Act and the Criminal Law (Temporary Provisions) Act be used only in exceptional circumstances and with a fair trial.

The government’s responses to these recommendations was to rationalize the position as one of a trade-off between being more open (on ‘freeing’ up space) and maintaining a pragmatic balance to maintain the fine racial-religious cohesion that Singapore has. The crux of the argument was that if Singapore were to do away with its current laws to allow for greater freedom of expression, there is a risk of disrupting the social cohesion in a very small country.

On the death penalty the government said that the “the majority’ were not keen to do away with the mandatory death penalty and on doing away with corporal punishment, the government officer added that such a step would have “no resonance  with the local community”.

While MARUAH is happy that finally the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities will be ratified in 2012, we urge the government not to ratify it with reservations as they have done with CEDAW and CRC. We also urge the government to have more open discussions on human rights and greater engagement with civil society.

Said Ms Braema Matthi, President of MARUAH, who attended the UPR session: “This is a good exercise for both the government and civil society. The government came to defend the position of Singapore with regards to human rights.

What this UPR process and our responses have shown is the amount of lobbying that civil societies in Singapore have ahead of them as human rights cannot be just argued away as a trade-off for social cohesion. In today’s globalised world, Singapore is part of a community that believes in human rights and so we need to work at rights and responsibilities and be confident that we will still live together amidst the diversity of views and practices.

As such MARUAH would like to say that there is a State Obligation – as part of this UPR process - to engage its citizens on concepts of human rights and not shy away from such discussions. It is a disappointing way to deal with human rights if the rationale to keep the death penalty is because the majority of citizens want it or because corporal punishment finds no resonance with the community.

“We hope over the next few years this will be the focus of the work by the government – to mainstream human rights discussions through the civil service and among the citizens.”

—————————–

Consultation Workshop:
“Engaging the ASEAN Intergovernmental Commission on Human Rights (AICHR) – The People’s Views”
Novotel Clarke Quay, Singapore
22 August 2009

A. Background
1. The above-named consultation was organised with the aims of raising awareness to the functions, role and governance of the ASEAN Intergovernmental Commission on Human Rights (AICHR) and for the people sector to engage in this process at the regional and national levels.

2. Ninety participants from various civil society, political and academic organisations, and interested members of the public attended the workshop and participated fully. Others who attended the event included diplomats, media personnel who were observers. The event was closed to media. A press conference was held at the end of the consultation.

3. The Workshop notes that the ASEAN Charter entered into force on 15 December 2008 following its ratification by all member-states. The Workshop notes that the timeline agreed upon by the ASEAN foreign ministers to have the Terms of Reference (TOR) of the AHRB finalized by 2009 will be met and that the High Level Panel (HLP) submitted the final draft of the TOR of the human rights body to the ASEAN foreign ministers on 19 July 2009 for consideration and endorsement.

4. The Workshop asserts that though the TOR does not have a strong mandate on protection, the process of protecting the rights of the people in ASEAN has begun.

5. The Workshop recognizes that while member-states of ASEAN still have diverse records on human rights, it appreciates that ASEAN itself, as a rules-based regional organization, has increasingly paid attention to human rights. The Workshop also thanks the HLP for their commitment.

6. The Workshop looks forward to the establishment of the AICHR by the 15th ASEAN Summit in October 2009 and is encouraged by the level of civil society engagement with the HLP in this process.

7. The consultation began with a plenary session on the AICHR. This was followed with a Question and Answer interaction. The speakers were:- Ambassador Ong Keng Yong, Director of the Institute of Policy Studies and former ASEAN Secretary-General, Singapore; Dr Sriprapha Petcharamesree, head of Human Rights Centre, Mahidol, Thailand and Chair of the Thai Working Group on ASEAN Human Rights Mechanism; Ms Shanthi Dairiam, former UN CEDAW Committee and founder of IWRAW, Malaysia; Mr Arpee Santiago, Programme Manager, The Working Group for ASEAN Human Rights Mechanism and Law Lecturer, Ateneo Human Rights Centre, Philippines. The chair was Ms Braema Mathiaparanam, Chairperson and coordinator, MARUAH, Singapore.

8. This plenary which was then followed up by break-out sessions aimed at specific aspects of the human rights in ASEAN and on AICHR. These break-out sessions, managed by Mr Siew Kum Hong, Vice-chair of MARUAH, were:
i. Selection of candidates for the AICHR,
ii. Dynamics between the State and AICHR,
iii. The human rights role of civil society and its synergy with the AICHR,
iv. The Political Declaration and the ASEAN Human Rights Declaration,
v. The dynamics between the Sectoral Bodies and AICHR.

9. The participants opted for the break-out sessions they were interested in through a registration exercise held earlier. Newcomers were asked to form two additional groups on sessions (ii) and (iii). The recommendations that follow are a summary of the points raised from the break-out sessions.

B. Recommendations
General Recommendations
10. The Workshop considers that as human rights permeate every sector of society, human rights must be mainstreamed into the whole ASEAN agenda.

11. The Workshop reiterates that the role and function of the AICHR also needs to be contextualised in the context of the principles of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Conventions on Human Rights.

12. The Workshop emphasises that in five years’ time the AICHR must have a stronger mandate on protection of human rights as AICHR’s Terms of Reference (TOR) are reviewed.

Selection of Candidates
13. The Workshop stresses that the Singapore candidate for the AICHR must hold non-partisan interests, act with integrity and impartiality, have knowledge and experience in human rights work, have good negotiating skills, act as an independent expert even though he or she is a government representative, and most importantly, have the passion and commitment to uphold the principles as enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

14. The Workshop asserts that at the end of five years, there should be an AICHR which has a strong mandate on protection and that the Singapore government representative needs to enable this process for such a provision to materialise when the TOR comes up for review.

15. The Workshop is keen to see a transparent process being put in place as soon as possible to select the candidate and that this process must be pluralistic and inclusive. In addition the Workshop also requests that the selection criteria and results through minutes of the selection process be published for the public.

16. The Workshop believes that since the government representative to the AICHR holds a human rights mandate, the process of selection itself must be a democratic one which is consistent with the aspects of the Paris Principles with regards to the selection of candidates

17. The Workshop suggests the adoption of a structured approach such as the NMP Selection Scheme with a Select committee comprising government, legal and civil society representatives to select the candidate, or alternatively, this selection could be carried out in a similar manner to that of the Committee of the Convention on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW). In either case various sectors (business, legal, NGO, arts, charity, unions, academe, etc) could be invited to propose candidates for selection.

18. The Workshop expresses concern that the current approach to select candidates independent of each other among ASEAN member countries, has an inherent risk of being inequitable in gender and civil society representation at the ASEAN level. The Workshop believes that as all representatives are working for ASEAN, there needs to be a diversity of fields and a gender balance among the candidature at ASEAN level.

19. The Workshop also believes that once appointed the representative must develop a platform to engage civil society and all other stakeholders in this process, besides being focused on creating the pathway for a stronger AICHR in five years’ time.

Dynamics between the State and the AICHR
20. The Workshop emphasises that since ASEAN is aiming to become more people-oriented, the government must develop forward-looking strategies and engage stakeholders to promote and protect human rights. As such, the workshop would like to see the Government implement human rights education and ensure that there are no barriers to public participation in human rights processes.

21. The Workshop requests that the Government mainstreams human rights across all Government agencies, such that they incorporate human rights into all aspects of policy-making and implementation. To that end, the Government should formulate an action plan to accomplish this, and also institutionalise a platform to engage civil society on issues related to AICHR.

22. The Workshop encourages the Government to set up a national human rights institution consistent with the Paris Principles.

23. The Workshop also suggests that it is important for AICHR to work towards setting up an Optional Protocol on human rights, geared at mainstreaming human rights into other ASEAN bodies, and for Singapore to sign up to it.

24. The Workshop asserts on the importance for AICHR to be aligned with the United Nations human rights system, such as monitoring member states’ compliance with and their accountability to human rights obligations.

The Human Rights Role of Civil Society and Its Synergy with the AICHR
25. The Workshop wants a platform for civil society to continually interact with the Government on matters of human rights in relation to the AICHR, and that this provision be mandated in the Political Declaration.

26. The Workshop wants the Government to invest in human rights education for the people, and to allocate budgets to support the human rights-related activities by civil society.

27. The Workshop seeks support from the Government to build up capacity of civil society on human rights processes at both the regional and international levels including the Universal Periodic Review, CEDAW, CRC processes.

28. The Workshops gives the assurance that it will support the Government by working together to make the AICHR a success, subject to an ongoing process aimed at substantive reviews to be put into effect in five years’ time for a stronger mandate for protection. In this regard, the Workshop also encourages civil society groups to support each other in this effort and in its watchdog role on human rights issues in Singapore and ASEAN.

Political Declaration/ASEAN Declaration on Human Rights and the ASEAN Human Rights Regime:
29. The Workshop is clear that the Political Declaration must embrace the following principles:
i. In the interpretation of the TOR, there can be no lowering of standards to below that of international human rights norms, including the ASEAN Charter and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
ii. A committee is established by the Government to assist the AICHR and the government representative in supporting the process of interpreting the terms of the TOR and the ASEAN Charter. This committee should include lawyers and civil society representatives.
iii. Provisions are made for each AICHR representative to engage constituents in participatory discussions on matters of the TOR and AICHR processes.

30. The Workshop in noting that the principle of non-interference is contained within the ASEAN Charter, affirms that adherence to this principle should in no way compromise human rights as a fundamental principle for the people of ASEAN.

31. The Workshop believes that the ASEAN Declaration on Human Rights should include a roadmap for its own transition to a convention that includes an enforcement mechanism and a stronger protection mandate.

32. The Workshop also encourages the ratification of major human rights instruments including the ICCPR, ICESCR by all ASEAN members and that ASEAN member countries and ASEAN as a region improve on their international rankings on human rights.

Dynamics between Sectoral Bodies and AICHR
33. The Workshop reiterates that the ASEAN Commission on Women and Children (ACWC) cannot be held to principles lower than CEDAW and the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC), as these are treaties which all ASEAN states have ratified.

34. The Workshop urges ASEAN member countries s to withdraw their reservations on CEDAW and CRC and to accede to the Convention on the Protection of All Rights Migrant Workers and Members of their Families as all these Conventions are rights-based.

35. The Workshop also emphasises that the ASEAN Committee on Migrant Workers (ACMW) cannot have standards that are lower than the International Labour Standards to which ASEAN member countries have agreed.

36. The Workshop believes that the ACWC and ACMW should function independently of the AICHR, at least in the short term, and that this status quo be reviewed in five years’ time based on improvements made to the TOR of AICHR.

37. The Workshop emphasises the need for the AICHR to establish structured linkages with the ACWC and ACMW, as soon as reasonably practicable once these sectoral bodies are created.

38. The Workshop is clear that there must be civil society representation in the ACWC and ACMW.

C. Acknowledgments
The workshop participants thanked Maruah( The Singapore Working Group for an ASEAN Human Rights Mechanism), Konrad Adenauer Stiftung, the Institute of Southeast Asian Studies and the ASEAN Studies Centre for convening the day’s discussion. They also thanked the speakers who made the time to be present at this historic event for civil society.

MARUAH (Singapore Working Group for an ASEAN Human Rights Mechanism) would like to extend its fullest support to the ongoing petition to protect spouses against marital rape.

Raping one’s spouse is an act of violence that is in gross violation of his or her human rights. Marriage should not grant one the ability to abuse one’s spouse through non-consensual sexual activity.

Please click here now to sign the petition to end marital rape immunity in Singapore.

“Rape is rape is rape. An extreme form of violence and violation. Rape of a woman by her husband should be treated just like any other kind of rape. Abolish marital rape immunity. There can be no exceptions.”