|
|
|
|
HUMAN RIGHTS FEATURES (Voice
of the Asia-Pacific Human Rights Network) (A
joint initiative of SAHRDC and HRDC) B-6/6
Safdarjung Enclave Extension, New Delhi 110 029, India Tel:
+91-11-619 2717, 619 2706, 619 1120; Fax: 619 1120 E-mail:
hrdc_online@hotmail.com Home Page: http://www.hrdc.net/sahrdc/
|
|
HRF/55/02 Embargoed for 17 April 2002 |
|
Few
States fly as far under the international community's human rights radar
as Singapore. A prosperous, in many ways Western-style nation, Singapore
is barely mentioned at the United Nations Commission on Human Rights.
Occasional references to conscientious objection to military service and
the death penalty aside, the Singaporean delegation sit smugly while their
Asian neighbours face a barrage of NGO, and often State, criticism. Singapore
is no better than its neighbours - in many ways, it's worse.
It is the Cuba of Asia (but without the crushing poverty or
damaging economic sanctions). Indeed, Singapore enjoys Western-style economic prosperity.
There can be no argument - flawed, as it is - that civil and political
rights cannot be afforded in Singapore. Denials of civil and political
rights in Singapore are simply of governmental policy. It
was Singapore's former Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew who first popularised
the idea of "Asian values" as a counter to the universality of
human rights. He claimed - and his fellow Asian autocrats supported - a
connection between the speed of Asia's economic growth and its
authoritarian political systems. Happily, in recent years the idea of
Asian values has lost credibility and currency. However, denials of civil
and political rights continue in Singapore with no recourse to Asian diplo-speak. Human
rights violations in Singapore are rife: the country detains conscientious
objectors to military service, has mandatory corporal and capital
punishment for many offences, has some of the most draconian security
legislation in the world (and uses it) and institutional discrimination
against ethnic Malays results in their poverty and often imprisonment.
However, looking at the Cuba-aspects of Singapore, this article focuses on
denials of freedom of speech and freedom of the press as negating factors
on meaningful democracy in Singapore. Singapore
is a parliamentary democracy, which since 1959 has been governed by the
Peoples' Action Party (PAP). While political opponents are allowed, the
various means employed by the government to suppress dissenting voices
mean that opposition parties and politicians are discouraged, if they are
not bankrupted or imprisoned under security legislation. In the election
of November 2001, only 29 of the 84 parliamentary seats were even
contested by opposition candidates. The PAP secured over 75 per cent of
the popular vote. The
Constitution of Singapore provides for freedom of expression, subject to
limitations imposed by the government. Traditionally, this has meant no
free speech whatsoever. Hailed as a breakthrough for free speech in
Singapore, a Speakers' Corner was established in September 2001. It allows
Singaporeans to make speeches in public, a luxury not allowed elsewhere in
the country without a permit obtained under the Public Entertainment and
Meetings Act. Permits are all but impossible to come by. The
innovation of Speakers' Corner is undermined by restrictions on its
operation. Speakers must
register with the police prior to speaking, and their speeches are
recorded by the government and kept for six years. Speeches may be used in
defamation and criminal proceedings in courts of law. Significantly,
certain topics, such as matters of race and religion are banned from
Speakers' Corner. Currently,
opposition politician Chee Soon Juan faces a fine of up to US$5,464 for
flouting a rule banning the discussion of racial issues at Speakers'
Corner. In early February 2001, Mr Chee criticised the authorities for
suspending from school three Muslim girls who wore Islamic headscarves in
class. Fines
are a common way of suppressing speech and opposition in Singapore. Indeed
one of the most popular methods of silencing opposition in Singapore is
politically motivated defamation action. The ruling PAP argue that their
standing in the electorate and their ability to govern is based on their
ability to defend their reputations when allegedly defamed. The
damages and court costs incurred by political opponents who lose
defamation suits are crippling. In January 2001, J B Jeyaretnam, leader of
the Workers' Party declared bankruptcy as a result of the damages levied
against him in defamation proceedings brought by the President. At the
time, Mr Jeyaretnam was one of only three opposition members in the
parliament. He was elected in 1981 - the first non-PAP politician elected
to parliament. The declaration of bankruptcy prevents Mr Jeyaretnam from
running for political office or taking any active part in the campaign,
and from practising his profession of law. His long-standing voice of
dissent has been silenced. Chee
Soon Juan is also currently being sued by Prime Minister Gok Chok Tong and
former Prime Minister lee Kuan Yew after Mr Chee asked questions during
last year's election campaign about secret government loans to the former
Suharto regime in Indonesia. Reflecting
what can only be described as a climate of fear, no sufficiently
experienced local lawyers were able or willing to represent Mr Chee. When
Mr Chee applied to the court to allow an Australian barrister, Stuart
Littlemore QC to represent him, Judge Lai Kew Chai denied the application.
Earlier, in a report for the International Commission of Jurists,
Littlemore had criticised the conduct of the judiciary in Singapore.
Mr Chee faces potential damages and costs of more than US$500,000. While
laws against defamation have their place in protecting the right to
protect a reputation, the campaign of defamation suits in Singapore is
out-of-control. While in other jurisdictions efforts are made to balance
freedom of speech and the right to privacy or a reputation, in Singapore
the scales of justice give freedom of speech little weight if any. As is
intended, the use of defamation proceedings discourages political dissent
and criticism of government policy. Self-censorship becomes a political
and financial imperative, thereby excluding Singaporeans from any
meaningful political participation in their governance. The
media in Singapore similarly operates under the threat of libel suits. The
Singapore Press Holding (SPH) and Mediacorp control all of the media.
Both enjoy close relations with the ruling PAP. The President of
the SPH is Tjong Yik Min, a former director of the state security agency,
while its Chairman, Lim Kim San is a former cabinet minister. The
government must approve, and can dismiss the holders of SPH management
shares, who control staff and content. The coverage of domestic politics
and sensitive international matters closely reflects that of the
government. Censorship is common. In December 2000, Mediacorp instructed
New Radio 93.8FM to edit a report on the anniversary of the Universal
Declaration on Human Rights which contained interviews with Kofi Annan and
a member of the Singaporean opposition. A few days later, the programme of
announcer Fauziah Ibrahim, who denounced censorship and self-censorship at
the station, was cut. The
foreign media have all either been sued or have had their circulation
restricted, or both. On
19 April 2001, a bill was passed to amend section 42 of the 1994
Broadcasting Authority Act, permitting the authorities to declare that any
foreign broadcasting service is "engaging in the domestic politics of
Singapore" and therefore requires prior approval of the Minister for
domestic transmission. The amendment allows for the arbitrary suspension
and banning of local retransmission of foreign broadcasts. It provides for
fines of up to US$ 55,000 for those found guilty. Even without this
development, foreign journalists have been harassed into
less-than-critical coverage of Singaporean politics. In the late-1990s,
Derek Davies, a former editor of the Far Eastern Economic Review rejected
the notion that the government could curtail unflattering reports by suing
the foreign media. Admitting defeat, Mr Davies later conceded: "I was
wholly wrong and Lee [Kuan Yew] largely right." With
a high number of Internet users in Singapore, restrictions on the press
extend to the content of newsgroups and email. According to the Think
Centre, even SMS communications are regulated. The Singapore Broadcasting
Authority's Internet Code of Practice prohibits material, which is
"objectionable on the grounds of public interest, public morality,
public order, public security, national harmony, or is otherwise
prohibited by applicable Singapore laws". As if this was not enough,
on 17 October 2001, the Parliamentary Elections [Election Advertising]
Regulations came into effect. The Regulations restrict the contents on
websites during elections, providing substantial fines or imprisonment or
both. On
16 November 2001, Robert Ho Chong, a retired journalist for the SPH was
arrested for allegedly "posting inflammatory" articles on a
website for Singaporeans for Democracy.
In the article, Chong alleged that Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong and
Deputy Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong had broken the law during the 1997
elections by visiting polling places without authorities. He urged voters
to similarly break the polling rules. Chong was acquitted of the charges
after he was judged mentally ill. The
Singaporean authorities are sophisticated in their repression of speech
and their control the media. Defamation suits compliment legislation to
effectively silence dissent. The
United Nations Commission on Human Rights' Special Rapporteur on the
freedom of opinion and expression, in his report to the Commission in
2000, discussed libel and defamation suits as impediments to freedom of
expression (E/CN.4/2000/63). He has noted "prohibitive fines for
libel which in a number of instances would strangle economically the
independent press, a political party, an association or any individual. In
this regard the Special Rapporteur considers that disproportionate
remedies or sanctions can significantly limit the free flow of information
and ideas." The
outcomes of defamation proceedings - which almost exclusively rule in
favour of politicians - also raise questions about the impartiality of the
judiciary. As the United Nations Special Rapporteur on the independence of
judges and lawyers has previously observed "allegations concerning
the independence and impartiality of the judiciary could have stemmed from
the very high number of cases won by the government or members of the
ruling party in either contempt of court proceedings or defamation suits
brought against critics of the Government, be they individuals or the
media" . Hopeful
Signs There
have been a few promising signs. In October 2001, the Think Centre, an
independent NGO, was approved for registration under Singaporean law. The
extent, to which it -and Singapore's embryonic civil society - can
effectively function, however will depend on the cooperation of the
Singaporean authorities. In
December 2000, the Think Centre was involved in the organisation of a
marathon run to celebrate International Human Rights Day. The marathon was cancelled after the government required the
organisers to apply for a permit to allow more than five people to
assemble. The permit was
denied. Singapore
has constructed a veneer of democracy, development and freedom that
largely insulate it from international criticism. While Singapore is a
parliamentary democracy in name, the effectiveness of its democracy is
undermined by the PAP's rigorous controls over speech and the press. It
is perhaps because of their economic prosperity that the people of
Singapore do not protest more at their exclusion from the political
process. From
a human rights stand point, however, the Western-style prosperity of the
place makes denials of civil and political rights all the more offensive. - Human Rights Features |
|
About SAHRDC / Action Alerts / Human Rights Features (Quarterly) / Publications |