MARUAH Singapore

The Attorney-General, Prof Walter Woon, has responded to MARUAH’s forum letter to TODAY.

‘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.

Professor Walter Woon has replied to AWARE’s forum letter in the Straits Times

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

The Association of Women for Action and Research (AWARE) has responded via the Straits Times Forum regarding recent comments by the Attorney-General on the issue of human rights.

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