There are some people you just cannot
fool
John Tan
31 Oct 07
When I walked into the room for the break-up discussion on freedom
of expression at the recent IBA symposium, the chief moderator, Mr
Hans Corell, had already started the session by highlighting his
reservations about the human rights situation in Singapore.
Mr Corell, a former UN official, observed that Singapore is
signatory to only two of the more than a dozen UN treatises. But it
was not a signatory to the most significant of these covenants
which is the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
(ICCPR).
When the session was opened to the floor, the president of the Law
Society of Singapore, Mr Philip Jeyaretnam, who was also one of the
three moderators, interjected that anyone could of course express
his or her disagreement with Mr Corells analysis of
Singapore.
No one did.
Instead quite a few people, including lawyers from Germany, India
and Sri Lanka, expressed their disquiet over the state of freedom
in Singapore, and in particular, questioned the character of our
defamation laws and the lack of scrutiny our citizenry can exercise
over public officials.
In fact, the German lawyer was visibly distressed. She kept
muttering, "How can this be? This is unbelievable
"
At one point, the Assistant Attorney-General, Mr Jeffrey Chan, rose
to address the group. After the nicety of saying that as a civil
servant he could not side with any political party or its political
position, he proceeded to justify our uniquely Singapore experience
and to pacify the disparagement expressed by the discussants.
He took an oft-used line of the PAP and asked the group
rhetorically, "The thing is this: When you are moving about in
Singaporeand you have been in Singapore for at least six daysdo
you feel any fear?"
To his shock, several people in the audience nodded their heads
vehemently. A lawyer from Indonesia expressed that, compared to
being in a bus with a murderer in Jakarta, he actually feel more
fearful in Singapore.
In Jakarta, he reasoned, if attacked, he could at least defend
himself; whereas in Singapore, he would be powerless since his
apprehenders would have the authorities themselves.
Another lawyer who had nodded earlier, chimed in to compare the
similarity she observed in Cambodia where she practices. There
appears to be the rule of law, she offered, but when you have a
collision with the establishment, you will know on whose side the
judges are.
To underscore this fear factor, Dr Chee Soon Juan had told me that
during the coffee break at least two IBA delegates had asked if the
"security men" were watching this conference.
One of them even asked nervously whether he was being photographed
talking with Dr Chee. Another had to whisper to Dr Chee in the
lavatory that it was good that he had countered Foreign Minister S
Jayakumar speech.
In short, these delegates sensed that they were being watched.
There are some people you just cannot fool.
Although the moderators had made a couple of appeals to broaden our
discussion and not just focus on Singapore, the discussion
invariable drifted back to Singapore.
What is striking is that despite my lack of contribution, it was
evident that the IBA delegates knew that Singapore is not the
beacon of the rule of law it claims to be.
Indeed, they were seeing Singapore for what it really isa
repressive and repressed society where the rule of law remains as
mere words.
John Tan is Assistant Secretary-General of the SDP. He recently
attended the IBA Rule of Law Symposium that was held in
Singapore.
http://www.singaporedemocrat.org/articleiba22.html