IBA: Prosperity versus individual rights

last SG · 2008-07-09T21:32:35+00:00

I would not put it pass you to understand good manners and simple courtesy, judging by your expertise in debunking conventional wisdom by twisting even your...

jojobeach SG

Only people with black and white thinking will think that asking for more freedom for the individual in Singapore means having a western style liberal democracy, this is a diversion of the issue. The question is can much more be done to improve on the current system in Singapore in regards to allowing an increase of personal responsibility and freedom?

And the answer in my opinion is yes, of course.

More importantly political stability is becoming less of a pull factor given the rise of China which makes our stability a less attractive feature in Asia. At the end of the day what is needed to survive in a future world market will beto rely on our human resources in an innovative population that takes on the future with their own hands, and unfortunately this cannot be done by rendering every safe and under OB markers.

If you want innovation, you have to put up with the risk that not everything will go nicely, but bunkering down in "stability" and is just a slow death. We might get down the road some ways, but at the end of the day we'll regret it when we realize we've browbeaten our own human resources into outdated cogs in a old machine.

Yah lor.

Who cares issit western style or eastern style.. or north style.. south style, animal style or dinosaur style.

As long as it brings about betta human progress.. is good style. Right ?

jojobeach SG

I have the same thoughts. This could already be on their agenda in the event if they lose to opposition one day they will . . .

What still in their agenda.. they are already showing signs of implementation liao.

Their obscene pay ... is not enough proof meh ? Like those greedy buffet customers..stacking their own plate with food all the way to the ceiling.

I wouldn't be surprised when LHL gets booted. after LKY passes....the whole family will migrate to another country.

foxtrout8 SG

Although we agree on the need for freedom, I like to point out to everyone that the issue with deflamation lawsuit is different.

I think it is important for the government to stamp out wrongful allegation that's meant to paint a false picture for personal gain. Not only must the government stamp out wrongful allegation to protect their reputation, it is important to put a price to wrongful allegation so that it will not be a norm for anybody trying to make a point.

Any deflamation made to anyone out on the street warrants a deflamation suit to defend one's reputation if needed. If someone spread untrue business rumour about some businessman detrimental to his reputation, he will sue that person. If we understand the need for that businessman to sue, why is the govt so unique and special that it must not sue to defend their reputation?

If you agree that the government cannot sue people whom sprout words that are not true, then you are advocating allegations. Advocating allegations means u are supporting lies and dishonesty.

Why sue? Are there any other means to prove one's innocence other than in court? If u are caught for a crime u didnt commit, where else can u prove your innocence other than in court?

The government has the right to sue as much as the individual has the right to sue inorder to protect one's reputation.

The govt must make the issue an accountable and transparent one so that the public can have confidence in the court ruling. The public must also be impartial to see that the govt is not perpentually the bogy man.

stupidissmart SG

So u guys agree tat liberal democracy is not the right way as well ? I originally thought I am the only one thinking like tis...

Now come to tis question... wat is the right mix of freedom and control ? If u ask me, I tend to agree tat singapore control is too much. Wat do u think is the optimal level then ?

More importantly political stability is becoming less of a pull factor given the rise of China which makes our stability a less attractive feature in Asia.

If u talk about stability losing importance in singapore, then i got to ask u again, if u r a ceo of a company, wat factors in singapore will make u invest here ? Furthermore, china is not considered politically stable since there is still a high level of corruption.

Fantagf SG

What still in their agenda.. they are already showing signs of implementation liao.

Their obscene pay ... is not enough proof meh ? Like those greedy buffet customers..stacking their own plate with food all the way to the ceiling.

I wouldn't be surprised when LHL gets booted. after LKY passes....the whole family will migrate to another country.

If they migrate, they are the true quitters and losers. They die die must win, can't accept all that from IBA with good spirit. They are making themselves looking perfect and others very imperfect. Only their policies are effective. We are waiting to see the downfall of PAP. For the benefit of Singaporeans, PAP should not be given any more chance to run Singapore.

jojobeach SG

Please lor.

They are so good at flip flopping.

Later they migrate liao.. then tell us.. is because we don't want them anymore lah.. then they migrate nothing wrong lor..

Everything come out their mouth is the people fault wat. Correct ?

Atobe SG

So u guys agree tat liberal democracy is not the right way as well ? I originally thought I am the only one thinking like tis...

Now come to tis question... wat is the right mix of freedom and control ? If u ask me, I tend to agree tat singapore control is too much. Wat do u think is the optimal level then ?

Can we trust that your attempt to reply to ST's statement -(in Italics)- is not an attempt on your part to prove the other thread correct - that "Singapore Best Education System Ranked 79 in Adult Literacy" ?

How did you so brilliantly interprete ST's statement - {painted to reflect the different emphasis) - to mean - "u guys agree tat liberal democracy is not the right way as well" ?

The :"right mix of Democracy" is the basic respect and tolerance that there are more then one view in Politics - (noting that criticising the Ruling Political Party is NOT being disloyal to Singapore); and that in a Democracy - politics is not necessarily the specialist trade nor the exclusive Holy Ground of politicians; as Politics is the basic survival instinct of Humans living together.

The "Right Mix" is through the acceptance and recognition of the basic individual rights to alternative political views, and everyone's commitment to protect this right of the individual that will require that individual to also respect and accept the same responsibility in protecting the rights of others.

More importantly political stability is becoming less of a pull factor given the rise of China which makes our stability a less attractive feature in Asia.

As a CEO - would you consider yourself as an entrepreneur - a risk taker - out to make pofits from the lowest cost possible given some acceptable risk conditions, or are you a politician first before being an entrepreneur ?

Do you seriously think that Singapore is politically more stable than China - if you believe that China's corruption will lead to instability ?

The pent-up social pressures may lead to a Krakatoa volcanic outburst, when social, economic and political stresses takes a bigger toll out of daily lives of Singaporeans that leads to sudden political swings that are unpredictable.

It is the unpredictable and the unknown that will posed a bigger risk to CEO of large companies, and with the strong hand of the Government to prevent citizens from voicing their various social and political frustrations, every Election will be a major problem for the incumbent political party.

If Singapore is so stable as you will want to believe, why will this Ruling Political Party be in a constant state of insecurity to its own political future, and insist on suppressing the legitimate rights of the Citizens to raise their voices ?

SingaporeTyrannosaur SG

So u guys agree tat liberal democracy is not the right way as well ? I originally thought I am the only one thinking like tis...

Liberal democracy is just a label that some of the more irrational people in here use to scream out warning about chaos and disaster the moment people suggest even moving the OB markers an inch. As if moving towards more openeness means needing to have slugfests in parliment or what have you not.

That's also the problem in seeing in black and white in an issue like this, just because people call for the ruling party to level the playing field and allow an opposition to trive does not mean they are calling for a liberal democracy or that we need to go to the other extreme.

And seriously there is no doubt that Singapore is quite far from suffering the the extremes of liberal democracy, and more at danger at suffering the extremes of an overly-strict system. Focusing overtly on the ills of an overly liberal and chaotic system while ignoring our true state is akin to a man who is suffering from heat stroke worrying about dying of hypothermia when he's told to use some ice packs to lower his body temperature.

And I believe personally that more openess is key to Singapore's future survival. It was the disasterous, closed-minded policies of the Ming dynasty that ultimately led to the most advanced civilization in the world falling into ruin. I think we are in serious trouble if we reach the stage thinking that there is no need to think anything other then whatever whoever's in charge at the moment says we must think.

walesa SG

I read with much interest the findings from page 49 to 62 inclusive.

In particular, the judgements reflected on page 60 of defamation lawsuits in Singapore that serve to illustrate the gross distinction between lawsuits filed by the fascists and those filed by other plaintiffs. More importantly, the backdrop against which the Privy Council's influence in Singapore (in pages 61-62) was abolished for what was an obvious political ploy can't be lost on any rational mind with the slightest comprehension of Common Law (or its equivalent in any civilised society on the planet).

Then again, it's arguably the ignorance of a population (abetted in no small part by the dictatorship running this regime) whose collective abysmal and negligible interest and knowledge of the judicial system and failure to comprehend the importance of having a credible system of separation of powers that has helped perpetuate a brand of tyranny founded on the wanton and excessive abuse of a dysfunctional Executive-Judiciary-Legislature framework.

So much for perpetuating a one-party rule on the rhetoric of having "no capable opposition", "no one else can do a better job" then...

maurizio13 SG

I read with much interest the findings from page 49 to 62 inclusive.

So much for perpetuating a one-party rule on the rhetoric of having "no capable opposition", "no one else can do a better job" then...

It's always a good idea to distribute powers amongst the various heads, having all powers concentrated on a single individual will only provide an impetus for corruption and other ills.

walesa SG

It's always a good idea to distribute powers amongst the various heads, having all powers concentrated on a single individual will only provide an impetus for corruption and other ills.

You've got that now, haven't you? I guess it's just a coincidence that the "heads" of the various state machinery are somehow related to a certain dynastic family.

lionnoisy SG

Again,CSJ gave a bias copy and paste here.

He put in SDP site:''

Breaking news: IBA criticises human rights and judiciary in Singapore News - Singapore Wednesday, 09 July 2008

International Bar Association

IBAHRI expresses concern about human rights and the independence of the judiciary in Singapore

But in fact,right in the Ex Summary,IBA said:

but its rankings are very low regarding its recognition and implementation of human rights and democracy.

In judicial and legal system rankings, Singapore has also performed well in international assessments.

So,u can see CSJ gave a black eye to SG judicial and legal system.

IBA just critized human rights and democracy,BUT NOT JUDICIARY

and LEGAL SYSTEM.

SUMMARY JUDGEMENT of CSJ v LKY

IBA dared bot looked into the depth of why Chees did not give

defense and the court handed down SA.

IBA just depends on the letter from CSJ!!u can search ''Chee''

and all the report full of his name.Or search'' letter ''or ''Summary'' .

The truth was Chees chose not to give defense,citing one thousand reasons.

Therefore,as planned by CSJ and his buddies,CSJ can cliam

to western NGO that SG court rules without his defense!!

AG shall repeat the sequences of the cases ,after the case is fully

settled.

SG gavaman rebuts

Minlaw Logo

MinLaw SINGOV MinLaw Home About Us Useful Links

/* Style for a block - DIV */ .m0table { background: #8C0626; border: 0px none #FFFFFF; } /* Style for outer tag, mout (mouse out) state */ .m0mouto { background: #8C0626; padding-left: 10px; } /* Style for outer tag, mover (mouse over) state */ .m0movero { background: #b02d00; font-weight: bold; padding-left: 5px; color: #FFFFFF; font-family:Verdana, Arial; font-size: 11px; } /* Style for outer tag, mdown (mouse down) state */ .m0mdowno { background: #993333; font-weight: bold } /* Style for inner tag, mover (mouse over) state */ .m0inner { font-family:Verdana, Arial; font-size: 11px; font-style: normal; font-weight: bold; color: #FFFFFF; } .mlyri{position:absolute;left:0;top:0}.mlyrh{position:absolute;left:0;top:0;visibility:hidden} Minlaw Staff

Response to IBA Human Rights Institute's R

lionnoisy SG

Response to IBA Human Rights Institute's Report

The Ministry of Law has received various media requests for the Singapore Government's comments to the report released by the International Bar Association Human Rights Institute on 8 July 2008. It is a 72-page report.

2. From a quick perusal of the Executive Summary, we note that IBAHRI has not taken into account our comments on their draft report, sent on 9 April 2008. We release a copy of our comments previously given to the Chairman of the IBAHRI on the draft report, for your reference.

3. The IBAHRI Report questions the independence of the Singapore Judiciary. This is contradicted by Mr Fernando Pombo, President of the IBA, who stated in his opening speech at the IBA Conference in Singapore last October that lawyers the world over were coming to Singapore because:

"this country has an outstanding legal profession, an outstanding judiciary, an outstanding academical world in relation to the law".

4. Other independent observers agree. The Political and Economic Risk Consultancy (PERC), which rates Asian countries on their business and legal environments, regularly rates the Singapore judiciary highly. PERC's Asian Intelligence Report 2006 explained that this was because the Singapore judiciary demonstrated three essential elements of judicial independence. First, the courts and individual judges within the system are publicly perceived to be impartial in their decisions. Second, judicial decisions are accepted by contesting parties and the larger public. Third, judges are perceived to be free from undue interference from other branches of government. The IBAHRI Report failed to acknowledge these facts.

5. The IBAHRI Report did acknowledge that "Singapore has a good international reputation for the integrity of their judgments when adjudicating commercial cases", but it alleged that for cases that involve "the interests of PAP members or their associates", there were "concerns about an actual or apparent lack of impartiality and/or independence". Instead of substantiating this grave allegation with evidence, the Report argued that "regardless of any actual interference, the reasonable suspicion of interference is sufficient". This is a feeble justification.

6. The cases brought by PAP members usually relate to scurrilous and completely untrue allegations of corruption made against them. Providing clean and efficient governance is a longstanding cornerstone of the PAP Government's policy. Thus defamatory allegations cannot be allowed to rest. The accuser has to prove his allegations. The decisions of the Courts in these cases are matters of public record, and can be analysed. Anyone questioning these verdicts should try to do so by examining these decisions properly, rather than making vague unsubstantiated allegations. What the western media continually criticise is that Singapore does not adopt Western, i.e. American, defamation laws that give the media freedom to report libellous untruths without liability to pay damages. It is also absurd to suggest that honourable and upright judges in commercial cases become compliant and dishonourable when dealing with defamation cases involving government ministers.

7. The human rights allegations in the Report also have no substance. Singapore had responded in detail to them in our 9 April response to the draft report. Singapore, like nearly all countries, subscribes to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Human rights are interpreted and implemented according to the specific histories, cultures and circumstances of each country. Every society must find and decide the appropriate balance between rights and responsibilities for themselves. Human rights groups in IBAHRI have closed ranks with other Western human rights NGOs to prescribe for Singapore and all new countries, especially China, Western norms of liberal democracy as the only way to bring stability and prosperity. They believe that free market policies cannot succeed without Western liberal democracy, and it is their mission to make other societies adopt the Western model.

8. No NGO has greater interest and understanding of Singapore's history and internal balance than Singapore's leaders, to be able to set norms that will work for Singapore. Whatever the shortcomings of the Singapore government, from our record no one has doubted that our overriding objective has been to get Singaporeans better educated, to understand and be exposed to the globalised world we are now in. So we adjust our laws and systems to maximise the benefits from global forces to make Singapore a thriving cosmopolitan city, where Singaporeans and foreigners live and work in a peaceful, safe and open environment. We listen carefully to all advice and then decide the right balance for ourselves. So far we have not done badly.

Midlusionz SG

Poor PAP.. If they didnt notice.. Their supporter (Our dad and mum's generation) is dying out soon .. Sad to said this but we younger generation aint looking at things the way our parents do.

Gutentaginator SG

Hi Mommy!!, Sg Tyrant, Gazelle, catnoisy, and u-know-who-u-are,

how are you?

I read that singapore world class news has published in an article by the very super unbiased Lydia Lim (senior political correspondent) that the Lawyer Singh said Lee has inaccuracy in his testimony.

In short, Dr Chee was right in that aspect.

This news saddened me.

I had the impression that they are perfect. I have since learnt to read the news carefully.

Any comments ?

stupidissmart SG

Let me guess, your paragraph suggests tat PAP should not sue other people for slander or libel etc right. First thing is, u already can say anything u want in the internet. U r already criticising all u want here. I think tat is a sign of opening up of the political scene here. If u feel tat some members of the PAP have sued too regularly and for too trivial the reason, I agree with u on tis.

If u talk about whether should people have the right to sue others for making deflamatory remarks, I believe everybody, no matter who they r have the right to do tat. Tis helps the public too because it make sure everybody does not make claims tat is totally imaginary.

Then wat is your answer on why u will want to invest in singapore ? A CEO is a risk taker, but he take calculated risk. He is not a gambler. Otherwise he might as well invest in zimbabwe or congo.

Do you seriously think that Singapore is politically more stable than China - if you believe that China's corruption will lead to instability ?

I think your theory tat singapore is gonna implode is probably just wild guesses. Lets look at the situation analytically now without making wild guesses on the future. In china, there is a high level of corruption. They can screw u up big time as they can backtrack on their previous promises or copy all your design and sell in another name. U can see such symptoms like opposition favourite example of suzhou industrial park or the LV factory there. Singapore does not have such signs. In fact, singapore seemed to favour companies more than the people... Tat is in a way, political stability which few countries in the region can offer.

If u wanted to have more openess and not opting for the fully liberal democratic countries like the example I have listed, I have already agreed with u tat singapore should give up more control and opt for more freedom. U find tat it is the "other extreme" but tis extreme is taken up by a lot of countries. Why is it ridiculous to refer to them especially when other people r the one giving these examples? However if u suggest going to become fully liberal, I find it is not a good governance. I have already asked, and u seemed to have not replied, wat is the level of openess u desire ?

I tell u mine. I just hope the PAP do not go about suing other opposition members. If they make stupid comment, just publicised it out

SevenEleven SG

Hi Mommy!!, Sg Tyrant, Gazelle, catnoisy, and u-know-who-u-are,

how are you?

In short, Dr Chee was right in that aspect.

This news saddened me.

I had the impression that they are perfect. I have since learnt to read the news carefully.

Any comments ?

that tone?, it's kachang puteh lah but it was spoken in public thou not written

Fantagf SG

Please lor.

They are so good at flip flopping.

Later they migrate liao.. then tell us.. is because we don't want them anymore lah.. then they migrate nothing wrong lor..

Everything come out their mouth is the people fault wat. Correct ?

I read that some people mentioned that LKY and PAP treat the common folks as enemies. If they quote reason for migrating is that the people don't want them, people can't question them, make them answer to why do the people don't want them. They are the devils and "angels". REn shi ta men, gui ye shi ta men.

jojobeach SG

Aiyo.. even if they migrate ... you think they care what the people say meh ?

They just say sayonara suckers !!

What can the common folks do ?

No law says they cannot migrate mah.

But if you insult them hor.. they can make sure you kena detain in Singapore ok ?

So yah lah... everything is they say correct and lawful lor.

You go read this website . http://www.yeocheowtong.com/

Lee is Lawyer family.. don't play play ok ?

Dondontan SG

First world govt can't take the heat, dismiss the human rights allegations. OUr first world leaders are fast to criticize other nations, leaders of other countries, when dealing with constructive criticisms and recommendations from IBA, they can't accept them. Losers.

« Previous Page Next Page »