MARUAH Singapore

Source: BBC News. Link to full story.
30 January 2008

Summary: This BBC story throws light on the plight of foreign domestic maids in Jordan. According to government statistics, there are 70,000 of them, of which 15,000 come from the Philippines. Their plight includes physical abuse, including rape, withholding of salary, long working hours, even denial of daily baths. The government of the Philippines became so concerned with the situation that it added Jordan to the list of countries to which deployment of domestic works is now banned.

A snippet from a Straits Times report highlighted the views of both Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew, and Prof. Tommy Koh, regarding the need for a human rights commission in Singapore.

IPS chairman Tommy Koh later asked Mr Lee if the PAP would allow for a human rights commission to be formed.

Mr Lee said that that was for the younger leaders to decide but added that, in his view, as long as the Singapore Government remained clean, capable, meritocratic and fair, ‘I don’t see the need for more political policemen’.

Prof Koh, however, said that he respectfully disagreed.

He pointed out that, in mature democracies such as the United Kingdom and France, there were institutions such as human rights commissions and ombudsmen which ‘act not as policemen but in order to help improve governance and fairness’.

This exchange occurred at Singapore Perspectives, a conference by the Institute of Policy Studies. The full report is reproduced below.

Major task to find next ‘A Team’ from small talent pool – MM: Two-party system not viable as there’s not enough top talent
Straits Times – February 2, 2008
Clarissa Oon

SINGAPORE’S talent pool is not big enough to support a two-party political system, as it is tough enough unearthing a first-rate team comparable to Singapore’s founding fathers, said Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew yesterday.

Calling the People’s Action Party (PAP) Old Guard Cabinet ‘the A Team’, he noted that there have been calls for political liberalisation, but also reminded that Singapore’s 3.7 million resident population lacked the talent to support a two-party system.

‘Many people say, why don’t we open up, then you have two big parties and one party always ready to take over. I do not believe that for a single moment.

‘We are not Israelis, you know. They can afford to do that. They have got any number of generals, writers, linguists, life science researchers, everything. It’s a different mix of population,’ Mr Lee said.

‘We do not have the numbers to ensure that we’ll always have an A Team and an alternative A Team. I’ve tried it, it’s just not possible,’ he added.

Speaking at a dialogue session at the Shangri-La Hotel, Mr Lee noted that, when he became Prime Minister in 1959, only two of the 10 ministers in his first Cabinet had been born in Singapore.

They were Mr Lee himself and Mr K.M. Byrne, who was the Labour and Law Minister in the early 1960s.

‘All the others were born and bred in Malaysia, Ceylon, India and China,’ Mr Lee said.

But now, Singapore has to pick leaders from within its borders, he said, adding that ‘it’s one thing going to the South China Sea for deep sea fishing (and) another thing going to Sentosa lagoon.’

He also cited the example of the current Chief Justice, Mr Chan Sek Keong, who was born in Ipoh.

For the next Chief Justice, however, ‘we are trawling from the Singapore pool’.

At the same time, he stressed the necessity for Singapore to have a top-notch team in charge.

‘Singapore needs an A Team in charge to work out the best solution…political leaders who are on the ball, think ahead, analyse carefully, choose the best options and sell it to the people, because you have got to carry people with you.’

He said that he had been lucky in finding an A team to replace the original one that was ‘more than equal’ in ability, integrity and capabilities.

The second A team was able to produce a third A team.

‘This present A team,’ he said, ‘is good for another two elections. If, in these two elections, you don’t see the silhouette of a fourth-generation A team, then you have reason to worry, because you need at least one term to become a really capable MP and a minister.’

In a dialogue with 900 participants at an Institute of Policy Studies ( IPS ) conference on the future scenarios facing Singapore, Mr Lee said that the major threat to the country was not an inability to attract talent but the loss of Singapore-born talent.

‘Our Achilles heel is that we lose too much of our own talent at the top, drawn by very attractive offers from top financial and legal institutions taking them out to China and elsewhere, and then not returning,’ he said.

He cited his own family as an example.

His two sons had both taken up government scholarships and then returned to help build the Singapore Armed Forces and the economy up.

But of his three grandsons, all outstanding students, only one had taken up a government scholarship.

The Public Service Commission had also informed him that only half of each year’s 300 top students applied for scholarships.

‘That is the challenge that I consider most critical. We win that challenge and we can keep two-thirds of our top talent, then…that settled core is firm, that spine is there, the added talent can be so many megabytes, the hard disk is there,’ he said.

Returning to the theme of political leadership, Mr Lee questioned the wisdom of supporting leaders like current United States Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama.

He described Mr Obama as a one-term senator with manifest intelligence and a gift for getting the right pitch.

‘But you ask yourself: Is it going to be a safer world with McCain or with Obama?’ he wondered aloud, leaving the question unanswered.

IPS chairman Tommy Koh later asked Mr Lee if the PAP would allow for a human rights commission to be formed.

Mr Lee said that that was for the younger leaders to decide but added that, in his view, as long as the Singapore Government remained clean, capable, meritocratic and fair, ‘I don’t see the need for more political policemen’.

Prof Koh, however, said that he respectfully disagreed.

He pointed out that, in mature democracies such as the United Kingdom and France, there were institutions such as human rights commissions and ombudsmen which ‘act not as policemen but in order to help improve governance and fairness’.

clare@sph.com.sg

A big issue in a number of Asean countries is the flourishing trade in child sex and child prostitution. All Asean countries are signatories to the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child but implementation lags behind intention.

Here are 2 news stories that illustrate the problem: Read the rest of this entry »

TODAY reported on the issue of setting up a human rights body in Singapore, with MARUAH being quoted in the article. Click here for a UN webpage explains what is a human rights body, commonly known as a National Human Rights Institution (NHRI).

Is the time right for Singapore to have a human rights body?

Tuesday • December 4, 2007

Nazry Bahrawi
nazry@mediacorp.com.sg

AS chair of the Association of South-east Asian Nations (ASEAN), Singapore had pushed for member countries to embrace human rights principles in the new charter adopted last month.

The Republic’s closest neighbours — Thailand, the Philippines, Malaysia and Indonesia — have incorporated a national human rights body in their political frameworks, with even Cambodia considering setting one up.

As some of the lawyers, politicians and practitioners whom Today spoke to believe, there has never been a more opportune time for the Republic to establish a human rights body of its own.

In fact — ahead of International Human Rights Day this Saturday — Member of Parliament (MP) for Pasir Ris-Punggol GRC Michael Palmer says, it might even be “incumbent upon us” to do so, given our chairmanship of ASEAN.

While agreeing such a body was needed, Nominated MP Siew Kum Hong, a member of MARUAH (Singapore Working Committee for an ASEAN Human Rights Mechanism), cautioned against conflating the need for a national human rights body with Singapore’s status as ASEAN Chair.

He said: “Does it then mean that after Singapore ceases to be Chair, the rationale for having a national human rights body also ends? That cannot be so.”

Lawyer Kala Mohan, on the other hand, echoes a long-held sceptic’s view — that Singapore does not need a human rights body, for we have good laws already in place. It is sufficient that we subscribe to a central human rights body under ASEAN, he argues.

“If a human rights body is formed in Singapore, then the Government will have to pass new legislation to regulate that. If it conflicts with other laws, then all these will have to be amended as well,” he told Today.

But should the Republic choose to tread this road, Dr Terence Chong, of the Institute of Southeast Asian Studies, thinks a good starting point is to explore the debate of human rights as enshrined within the ASEAN Charter.

ASEAN had drawn criticism from civil society organisations on this. Said Dr Chong: “ASEAN has yet to even define what human rights means or entails. Until a list of sacred rights is nailed down, governments can always defer to local laws when such rights are abused.”

What form could a national human rights body in Singapore take? Some say it must, above all, be independent of the Government to be taken seriously.

At the same time, MP Baey Yam Keng of Tanjong Pagar GRC warned against the body becoming a “lobby group” or an outfit to meet “the agenda of other countries or organisations”.

He said: “It should not be there just for the sake of advocacy. The issues in human rights have to be cognizant of the society they are applied to, the stage of social development and the degree of sophistication of the country and people. It should be a bottom-up organisation.”

Its members, said former NMP and lawyer Chandra Mohan Nair, can comprise retired politicians, judges and civil servants including permanent secretaries, as well as activists and academics.

Should such a body materialise, he believes its first job could be to review aspects of liberties as enshrined in the Singapore Constitution.

Agreeing this was the best place to start, Mr Palmer added: “The most contentious issue is probably freedom of speech. It is always on the tip of everybody’s tongue and something they might want to review.”

Think Centre president Sinapan Samydorai, meanwhile, would like to see such a body actively educate the public about human rights. Currently, he says, awareness here is largely limited to university students from the sociology, political science or law faculties where such issues are discussed.

Mr Samydorai is part of the Singapore Working Group on ASEAN — a coalition of seven civil society organisations — which is planning to hold, on International Human Rights Day this Saturday, a forum on the concerns of the disabled, sexual minorities, migrant workers and single mothers.

But despite their differing views over the composition and tasks of a national human rights body, most pundits agree on one thing — that one vital challenge will be to get the Government’s buy-in.

The Straits Times reported on MARUAH’s position paper on the ASEAN charter.

Charter’s call to protect human rights welcomed
The Straits Times – November 22, 2007
Zakir Hussain

A NEW civil society working group welcomed the ASEAN Charter as a promising ‘positive step’, even as it raised several concerns about the document inked on Tuesday.

The interim Singapore Working Committee for an ASEAN Human Rights Mechanism, which calls itself MARUAH – Malay for dignity, aims to raise awareness of human rights.

It was formed in September when key civil society organisations met to help shape the kind of human rights body ASEAN would finally set up, following the July decision by the grouping’s leaders to include a provision for a human rights body in the Charter.

When up and running, MARUAH will be part of a coalition of national groups from ASEAN countries which has its secretariat in Manila.

In a four-page statement this week, MARUAH congratulated ASEAN for successfully negotiating the ASEAN Charter and welcomed its call to protect human rights.

‘We feel that through the ASEAN Charter, more good will be achieved for the people of ASEAN,’ it said.

The group itself plans to offer a Singapore perspective on the ASEAN human rights body and work with its ASEAN counterparts to set up an inter-governmental human rights commission.

However, MARUAH expressed concern that the Charter did not provide ‘adequate comfort’ on how non-compliant member states would be dealt with.

Provisions of the Charter were also ‘vague and open to different interpretations’.

It said: ‘We would also like to seek assurance on how the ASEAN Charter would function…in situations where respect for the sovereignty of member states may be in direct conflict with human rights violations within that member state.’

It noted that ASEAN was already facing difficulties in dealing with the Myanmar crisis.

It also stressed the need for ASEAN to involve civil society and expressed disappointment that civil society groups were not engaged in drafting the Charter in the run-up to this week’s ASEAN summit.

The group’s members come from organisations such as the Association of Women for Action and Research (AWARE), Transient Workers Count Too and Action for Aids.

Led by social activist and Straits Times journalist Braema Mathi, members include AWARE president Constance Singam, nominated MP Siew Kum Hong, and former Law Society president Peter Low.

Said Mr Siew: ‘The Charter gives us a unique opportunity to get a dialogue on human rights started.

‘Hopefully there is a chance for groups like ours to engage governments and shape what the human rights body could look like.’