To:
The Editor
Forum Page
The Straits Times

Dear Sir,

We refer to the joint statement by the Ministry of Manpower and Ministry of Home Affairs (“Joint Response to Media Queries on Statements by NGOs/individuals and Former SMRT Driver He Junling”, 26 April 2013.) The statement accuses the NGOs and individuals involved in the SMRT drivers’ case of “hindering the investigation while continuing to cast aspersions on the integrity of the police.” It also claims that the NGOs and individuals have exploited vulnerable foreign workers for their own political ends.

We are troubled that the government sees the involvement of civil society in pushing for greater transparency as casting aspersions on the integrity of the police and “working for their own political ends.”

MARUAH seeks clarity on the government’s definition on “political ends” and would like to know how asking questions on processes of investigations has cast aspersions on the integrity of the police. We believe that transparency is key to confidence-building and dialogue between the government and civil society, essential for a healthy democracy. More will be achieved with greater clarity from the government to clear doubts and assure that individuals in police custody are accorded proper protection, which is important to both the government and to civil society groups.

It is also part of Singapore’s constitution that guarantees Singapore citizens the rights to freedom of speech and expression, and association. Rather than taking an adversarial tone and seeing civil society as the political opposition, we call on the government to respect and in time also welcome such non-partisan citizen engagement on the major issues that concern our country.

We hope Singapore will continue to evolve and become a mature society where differing points of view can be discussed openly and honestly, without acrimony.

Ms Braema Mathi
President
MARUAH

To:
The Editor
Forum Page
The Straits Times

Dear Sir,

We refer to the reply “No to exploiting NGOs/VWOs for Political Ends” from the Ministry of Culture, Community and Youth and note with thanks Mr Ho’s response on behalf of the government.

We welcome Mr Ho’s clarification that politicians – whether they are associated with the PAP or Opposition parties – are equally permitted to serve with VWOs and NGOs that receive state funds.

We value this clarification as it is this principle that needs to be clear to dispel any perceptions on the ground among VWOs/NGOs that steadfastly support elected MPs only from the ruling party. It is also an important principle that MPs from the PAP as well as Opposition parties, that is all government MPs, cannot exploit VWOs/NGOs for their own political ends.

Since Mr Ho’s letter represents the stand of the government, we trust that all state bodies, responsible for regulating and awarding funds to the VWO and NGO sector, including the ROS, NCSS and MCCY, as well as private sector philanthropists, duly appreciate that all VWOs/NGOs, regardless of the ruling party or opposition MPs they have on board, should be treated equally.

MARUAH, as a human rights body, is keen that under no circumstances should an association with Opposition parties (or the ruling party for that matter) be used, either explicitly or implicitly, as a reason for denying state support to a VWO or NGO, provided the members in question do not use their VWO/NGO involvement for partisan purposes. In this aspect we agree with the government’s stand.

MARUAH looks forward to the VWO/NGO and education sectors embracing the principle of equal treatment for all and hence involving individuals of diverse political affiliations so that Singapore’s social and civil society sectors reflect the changing political landscape of Singapore and its citizenry activism.

Lastly MARUAH also notes Mr Ho’s remarks with regards to a non-political party member’s role in a VWO/NGO and say that this needs much more dialogue between government and civil society activists as to the fundamental right of a citizenry to be engaged in the discourse of shaping their country, within or out of partisan politics.

Ms Braema Mathi
President
MARUAH

27 April 2013

What’s the stand on politicians serving in NGOs and VWOs?

I REFER to the statement by Minister-in-charge of Muslim Affairs Yaacob Ibrahim to the effect that money given by the state to non-governmental organisations (NGOs) and voluntary welfare organisations (VWOs) should not be used “for the purpose of creating a platform for people to be involved in partisan politics” (“AMP director quits, alleging official pressure”; Wednesday).

A number of People’s Action Party (PAP) MPs currently serve as advisers or board members of VWOs and NGOs that are in receipt of state funds. While they may be serving in their personal capacities rather than in their capacity as MPs, their service would tend to generate visibility and political capital for these politicians and their political party, in this case, the PAP.

If politicians of only one party – the PAP – can serve in VWOs or NGOs that are positioned as non-partisan and accept state funds on that basis, while politicians of other parties cannot do so without the VWO or NGO being deemed partisan and ineligible for state funding for that reason alone, this is in effect politicising the VWO/NGO sector in favour of the ruling party.

Institutionalising such partisan double standards is deeply troubling and unhealthy for Singapore as a society.

We ask for a clear statement by the Government on the policy towards individual members of VWOs and NGOs engaging in (or being seen to engage in) party political activities in a separate capacity, be it with the ruling party or opposition parties. This is about equality and fair play.

Braema Mathi (Ms)
President
MARUAH

Join us at a public forum to discuss the recent SMRT strike, and its impact on human rights in Singapore.

Date & Time: 21 April 2013, 2.30pm
Location: conclave, 40 Tras Street [map]

RSVP at the Facebook event page here.

Seating is on a first come first serve basis and subject to capacity. Please arrive early for best seating.

Hosted by: Maruah Singapore, Think Centre, Transient Workers Count Too (TWC2) & Workfair Singapore

———————————————————————–

Pre-abortion counselling: Access should be equal for all

As a human rights group, Maruah objects to the conditions for offering counselling services to women and girls seeking abortions (“Abortions in Singapore“; last Sunday).

Though we recognise that having an abortion is a personal choice, counselling is a means to help women and girls cope with their decisions.

On that premise, we find the Government’s conditions for offering pre-abortion counselling – a minimum Primary School Leaving Examination (PSLE) qualification, being a mother to fewer than three children, not being a rape victim or a foreigner – appalling as they deny some women and older teens access to counselling.

What is particularly abhorrent is the implication that abortion is reserved for those who do not attain academic success in standardised tests such as the PSLE. Surely, on such a personal matter as abortion, it is the Government’s duty to ensure that everyone has equal access to counselling.

We also note that this is a discriminatory practice against the principles of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women, which Singapore ratified in 1995.

It is also disturbing that girls aged 16 and below can access abortion without parental consent. The girl needs support and protection beyond the act of an abortion.

Though we recognise that families can sometimes be the problem, they need to be counselled to be supportive of the daughter’s decision. If it is an equally young boy who has been involved, he too needs counselling.

Singapore’s high abortion rate – among older teens and adults especially – is a sad reflection of the failure of comprehensive sex education, which ought to deal with abstinence, being faithful, condom use and/or contraceptives. All these methods have been proven to be highly effective in reducing both unwanted pregnancies and sexually transmitted diseases.

Abortion is a very personal choice that women and girls make with or without their partners. There can be no discrimination on who has access to counselling services. And the way to reduce abortions is to offer a comprehensive sexuality education programme that includes discussions on safe sex and the use of contraceptives.

Braema Mathi (Ms)

President

Maruah

The paper studies the extent of voter confidence in ballot secrecy in Singapore elections and offers way to ensure that secrecy can be enhanced. On the basis of empirical evidence gathered from two surveys, MARUAH is setting out the view that a significant share of Singapore voters – approximately 10% – still cast their vote in fear that their ballots may be traced back to them by the authorities. This erodes the legitimacy of Singapore’s elections, undermines the standing of Parliament and violates the spirit of the 1971 declaration of Commonwealth principles signed by Singapore.

MARUAH sets out recommendations to address this problem so as to defend the perceived integrity of Singapore’s elections and to strengthen political stability by widening social acceptance of electoral outcomes.

MARUAH Position Paper on Improving Citizen Confidence in the Secrecy of the Ballot
ANNEX A – Country comparison
ANNEX B – Photographs

“In Singapore, the slight relaxation of mandatory death penalty laws and curbs on an opposition party leader did little to relieve the severe restrictions the government imposes on civil society, Human Rights Watch said.”

Singapore: Running in Place on Human Rights
Government Makes Little Progress Implementing Rights Reforms
http://www.hrw.org/news/2013/02/01/singapore-running-place-human-rights

MARUAH, a human rights organisation, is concerned over the Prime Minister’s approach in demanding an apology and removal of the article and subsequent posts on the Action Information Management (AIM) and Aljunied-Hougang Town Council (AHTC) matter on Mr Alex Au’s website.

These demands were made under threat of a defamation suit (“Blogger Au to remove post after PM Lee takes legal action”; Jan 5). In the recent past, defamation suits by political leaders have exacted high monetary compensations from the affected individuals.

As the AIM-AHTC matter is an issue of national interest, threatening a defamation suit at this juncture on the matter is, firstly, untimely. It is not calibrated to meet the need for deeper discussions on what is seen as an issue with many unanswered questions.

The Prime Minister’s action will have the attendant chilling effect on public debate and increase the cynicism among the citizenry at a time when there seems to be more political space for interaction, which will not always remain sane and palatable.

This defamation threat is also regrettable as there are avenues – Parliament, mainstream media, social media – available to politicians to address the AIM-AHTC matter and let the facts speak for themselves.

Secondly, Law Minister K Shanmugam recently likened defamation to stealing one’s reputation. We say that reputation is not property that can be stolen or reinstated with defamation suits and monetary compensation alone. Anyone defamed does not automatically have his/her honour reinstated because an apology and/or compensation had been secured.

Reputation is an issue of honour that can and should be protected by encouraging open, robust and transparent debates.

There must also be a case to show the ill-will was highly prejudicial, based on malice and/or baseless.

Defamation suits in themselves are limiting and political figures, more than anyone else, will remain vulnerable to aspersions; it will be the merits of the case that will speak volumes. In this case, the AIM-AHTC matter merits a thorough sharing of information by both the ruling and opposition parties.

Thirdly, Singaporeans are discerning and capable of discarding baseless and nonsensical views. What is important is to develop higher thresholds of dealing with diverse views expressed in myriad ways and to use the available avenues to right one’s reputation.

We, the Government and public, are on a journey towards greater political space. Threats of defamation suits can silence discussions of national interest, freeze our expressions and stunt our growth. That would be the greater pity.

The rapists need to be brought to justice and be suitably punished for their dastardly deeds.

But as a human rights group, MARUAH makes three points in response to the Law Minister’s comments, that tragic incidents like this justify the death penalty.

Firstly, the attempt to justify the death penalty by reference to a crime’s heinousness will inevitably lead to inconsistency in outcomes. For instance, even the most terrible crimes against humanity in recent history, such as those convicted for perpetrating the genocides in Rwanda and Bosnia, have not been met with the death penalty.

Secondly, despite the global recognition afforded to the strengths of Singapore’s criminal justice system, we have recently seen cases where persons sentenced to hang were saved at a very late stage by the heroic efforts of their lawyers. This shows that however good a system is, it will never foolproof, and the risk of killing an innocent man will always be present.

Finally, the use of emotive cases like this to justify the death penalty is inherently problematic. What is needed, but has still not taken place in Singapore, is an open, rational and comprehensive discussion on the death penalty and its effectiveness in combating serious crimes.

We believe that India does not need to reflexively adopt the death penalty to combat its problems with violence against women and girls. Instead, it would be better served with effective access to justice, functional law enforcement and prosecutions, timely judicial processes and gender-sensitive public education.

Yours,
Ms Braema Mathi
President, MARUAH

—————————————————-

Your Excellency,

We, members of a human rights group called MARUAH which is based in Singapore, would like to offer our deepest condolences to the family, friends and the people of India over the sad passing away of the 23-year-old woman who was brutally gang-raped. We are sorry that every effort made to save her life has failed.

Please do accept and do convey our sympathies to the family and the injured boyfriend of this brave young woman. Sir, we have been admirers of the civil society in India. We have been in dialogue sessions with non-governmental organisations that do remarkable work at the grassroots level to improve the lives of people in India. Coming from Singapore, it has always been refreshing to learn from their advocacy campaigns. However, from time to time, it is also evident that they face severe challenges in carrying out their work in this area of violence against women and the girl-child.

We are writing to seek support for their work and for our sisters in India. We endorse the sentiment that the death of this 23-year-old ought not to be in vain and needs to become a tipping point to bring about better protection for women and children. We ask humbly that the Government of India, indeed, will ensure that women and girls receive adequate legal protection, sensitive enforcement officers, support systems and expedient prosecution processes. We also hope that there will be more support for gender-sensitive public education through the mass media and through school curriculum.

We have our challenges too in Singapore. But as fellow travellers it has been painful for some time to read about the acid attacks on women, the Eve Teasing against women and girls, the sexual harassment, the sexual assaults and the general demeaning of women.

Women’s rights are human rights.

We hope that 2013 will be a better year for women and girls all over the world, including those in India and in our own country, Singapore.

Yours sincerely,
Braema Mathi (Ms)
President
MARUAH
http://www.maruah.org