http://yoursdp.org/index.php/news/3-internation…
IBA: Systematic repression of freedom in
Singapore
Wednesday, 09 February 2011
IBA Media Law & Freedom of Expression
Blog
A recent High Court ruling has reignited fierce debate on
Freedom of Expression in Singapore. Dr Chee Soon Juan, the leader
of the opposition Singapore Democratic Party, has just lost his
appeal to overturn a conviction for speaking in a public place
without a licence. Sentenced to a fine of $20,000 or imprisonment
of 20 weeks in default, the SDP leader is
facing the very real risk that, incarcerated, he will be unable to
lead his party in the forthcoming general elections.
Dr Chee’s case is symptomatic of a wider problem in Singapore:
the systematic repression of the right to freedom of expression. On
the issue of freedom of the press, former Prime Minister Lee Kuan
Yew remarked:
‘“We cannot allow [the press] to assume a role in Singapore that
the American media play to America, that of invigilator, adversary
and inquisitor of the administration.”
’
The Singapore government has the power to appoint all members of
staff and directors at Singapore Press Holdings Ltd (SPH), a
corporation which owns all the general circulation newspapers and
often employs journalists with prior government associations. The
Newspaper and Printing Press Act restricts newspaper content and
circulation, as seen in successful cases against the Asian Wall
Street Journal, Time and Economist. Similarly the Broadcast Act
prohibits foreign media commenting on domestic issues. This
regulation has created a tendency towards self-censorship among the
media.
Criminal and civil defamation laws permit imprisonment, fines
and damages which have exceeded $5.8 million.[i] The government
have made increasing use of the defamation laws to those who report
or express dissenting views. In November 2010, Alan Shadrake was
convicted of contempt of court, for his critical review of
Singapore’s death penalty law and administration in his book “Once
a Jolly Hangman: Singapore Justice in the Dock”. He also faces
separate charges of criminal defamation, which carries a maximum
penalty of two years in prison and a hefty fine.
Singapore has not ratified the International Covenant on Civil
and Political Rights, but as a member state of the United Nations
is bound to respect “fundamental human rights”. But who decides
these rights? Many commentators will argue that they are those
enshrined in the Universal Declaration on Human Rights, in which
Freedom of Expression is guaranteed by Article 19.
The United Nations Human Rights Committee has stressed that
freedom of expression ensures the free political debate essential
to democracy[ii] and has expressed concern that overbearing
government controls of the media are incompatible with Freedom of
Expression.
The Singapore government’s view is different. They have long
asserted that human rights principles and conceptions are dominated
by Western perceptions and argue for an “Asian Values”
interpretation of human rights. This has been characterised as the
assertion of the primacy of duty to the community over individual
rights and the expectation of trust in authority and dominance of
the state leaders.
Crucially for Dr Chee and Alan Shandrake, it translates to the
precedence of economic and social rights over the political right
to freedom of expression. According to the Singapore Institute of
International Affairs, this theory, known as the “liberty
trade-off”, asserts that:
‘“Asian governments are justified in restricting civil and
political rights in some circumstances in favour of social
stability and economic growth. Civil and political rights are
immaterial when people are destitute and society is unstable.
Accordingly, as luxuries to be enjoyed once there is social order,
civil and political liberties must be temporarily suspended so as
to not inhibit the government’s delivery of economic and social
necessities and so as to not threaten or destroy future development
plans.”
’
Whilst this argument may have been slightly more palatable if
Singapore’s citizens were, in fact destitute, the reality is that
Singapore is ranked as one of the world’s wealthiest countries and
boasts a high life expectancy. Thus in Singapore’s case, arguments
made in favour of a “liberty trade-off” are rendered completely
untenable.
The “Asian Values” hypothesis is equally suspect. The
UDHR recognises the universal applicability
of human rights and any nation party to this treaty is not
permitted to restrict rights purely on cultural, religious or
political grounds.
The recent murder of gay rights campaigner David Kato who
campaigned tirelessly against the “Anti-Homosexuality Bill” in
Uganda, highlighted the potential clash between international
standards of human rights and cultural specific attitudes. The
draft bill broadens the prohibition the criminalisation of
homosexuality and introduces the death penalty in certain
circumstances. Even against a backdrop of culturally systemic
homophobia, regarded as “un-African” and enshrined in the penal
code, which makes homosexual acts illegal, the United Nations has
been quick to condemn the new bill as “draconian” and “blatantly
discriminatory”, warning that if enacted, the bill would bring
Uganda into a “direct collision” with established international
human rights standards aimed at preventing discrimination.
Similarly, even in the face of blatant and shocking human rights
abuses, those who oppose a normative standard of fundamental rights
will defend violations. In Afghanistan, footage has recently
emerged of a woman being stoned to death after she ran away from an
arranged marriage. A religious justification and general suspicion
of alternative values was forthcoming from a Taliban spokesman:
‘“Stoning is in the Koran, and that it is Islamic law. There are
people who call it inhuman – but in doing so they insult the
Prophet. They want to bring foreign thinking to this
country.”
’
Although perhaps more stark, these cultural and religious
justifications for violating rights are as unacceptable as
Singapore’s purported assertion of an “Asian Values” conception of
human rights. Even though the Singapore government’s language is
more subtle, their arguments amount to same basic tenet: the
purported justification of the denial of fundamental human rights,
by reference to cultural, religious or political specific norms.
Speaking recently in New York, the UN Secretary-General, Ban Ki
Moon warned against such an interpretation of human rights:
‘“Yes, we recognize that social attitudes run deep. Yes, social
change often comes only with time. Yet, let there be no confusion:
where there is tension between cultural attitudes and universal
human rights, universal human rights must carry the day. ”
’
http://ibamedialaw.wordpress.com/2011/02/08/%E2…
Be Our Supporters
http://www.facebook.com/yoursdp