Singapore and the human rights debate

By Bilveer Singh

SINGAPORE (JP): The recent Michael Fay incident brought into international limelight Singapore's position and policies on human rights.

Many Western commentators accused Singapore of implementing "barbaric" policies, implying that not only were the laws in the republic draconian but that behind the "Singapore legality" was a clear anti-human rights philosophy.

The West was not impressed with the reduction of the caning penalty from six to four strokes because Western commentators regard "caning" to be a barbaric practice fit only for the Middle Ages.

In view of this, it would be useful to look at Singapore's human rights record and analyze where it stands, especially as far as the Western accusations are concerned.

Singapore has always argued that human rights are universal, indivisible and interdependent. However, it has differed with human rights proponents on the enforcement of these rights, arguing that specific local conditions and needs should be borne in mind. In view of this position, the West has found Singapore a convenient punching bag as far as its human rights track record is concerned.

The Singapore government has been criticized for many human rights shortcomings as the following Asia Watch list makes explicit: imprisonment without due process of law; preventive detention through the ISA; restrictions on freedom of movement, association and speech; physical and psychological "mistreatment" of detainees, coercion and re-arrest; limits on judicial review, "intimidation" and "harassment" of opposition or potential opposition politicians; restrictions or banning of media; restrictions or banning of student, labor and professional organizations; banning of labor strikes; "arbitrary" use of discretionary legal authority; limitation of parliamentary debate; "intervention" in the judiciary; and "gerrymandering" to make the electoral process less representative.

Is this fair? It is obvious that if the above list is to be taken to heart, then Singapore appears to be the modern day gulag. Fortunately, this is not so and much of this notion of human rights abuses stems from misunderstanding and lack of information about the republic's conditions.

The fact that the Singapore leadership is committed to human rights can be seen by its policies towards its people, many of which are enshrined in the country's constitution. More important, the government has no choice but to respect these rights as their denial could lead to an explosion.

At the same time, however, there is a need to appreciate the peculiarities of the country and this is where there is a "social contract" between the people and government about what can and cannot be undertaken, and as to the pace at which human rights developments should move.

The key factors which shape Singapore's political developments include its small land size, even though it is located strategically. Other factors are its multiracial, multi-religious and multilingual population, and its largely dependent economy; Singapore's GNP is only one-third of its international trade.

This has made Singapore a very vulnerable state. And it must be noted in this context that no country that denies its people basic rights could survive as long, or as well as Singapore has.

With a per capita income of more than US16,500 and a national reserve of more than S$90 billion, Singapore is definitely a success story of the post-1945 era. This would not have been achieved if human rights abuses had been the norm and the wishes of the people ignored.

The fact that the People's Action Party has been continuously voted into office since 1959 speaks well of it. People have the right to vote the PAP out of office and yet this has not occurred. It is evident that the people support various government policies which have curbed certain activities of its citizens in the name of the country's well-being.

Singapore's approach to human rights needs to be understood from the perspective of relativity. Singapore believes that the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is an international standard that should be aspired towards.

However, the peculiarities of the country prevent this presently. Thus, while Singapore is aware of the various declarations and covenants on human rights, it would prefer that in their implementation, countries be allowed the flexibility necessary to accommodate their respective features and priorities. Thus, the preference is for relativism rather than universality. Singapore also believes that international covenants on human rights should be acceded to.

At the same time, certain actions by the West have deterred many countries in the Third World from doing so. This is because if a country signs such a covenant, it opens itself up to external pressure and oversight by overzealous countries bent on implementing the letter and spirit of the covenant to the extreme. Yet, if they do not accede to these covenants, they are accused of violating human rights and of not being committed to their realization. Countries are thus faced with a classic dilemma of being damned if they support such human rights regimes and damned if they do not.

As for the relationship between the individual and the state, the priority is given to the state over individual and even community interests. This is due to the vulnerability of the country. The larger national interest must prevail.

Because Singapore has three main ethnic communities, the Chinese, Malays and Indians, premium is given to racial harmony over the interest of the individual or racial group. Otherwise, the chauvinism of each community would destroy the republic. This is all the more so as Singapore is located in the Malay world.

Due to this peculiarity, emphasis is paid to an individual's duty and obligation to the country rather than to individual rights per se. The interest of the community and nation must prevail over that of the individual.

Also, in terms of priority, the economic aspects of rights are given more emphasis as compared to political and civil rights. This is because the tested formula of giving the people a stake in the country's well-being has worked well. If people have a stake in the well-being of the country, then they will be prepared to forgo some rights in the short run, especially political ones, in the name of the country's well-being. Being responsible and of immigrant stock, the citizens of the country have been amenable and responsive to this approach. As the formula has worked well, herein lies another reason for this approach.

An important reason why the Singapore model has been criticized is because there is evidence that certain rights of citizens have been denied. This is granted. This can be gleaned from both legislative and administrative decisions. The ISA and the Criminal Law (Temporary) Provision Act, providing for detention without trial has been criticized for its lack of habeas corpus.

However, critics fail to take into account the value of such legislations. The ISA, which was introduced by the British colonial authorities, was meant primarily to tackle the problem of the communist threat while the Criminal Law (Temporary) Provision Act was directed at criminal elements from secret societies against which no one would give evidence in a normal judicial process.

Thus, these draconian laws are necessary for the security of the populace, which is itself an important right of the people. Singapore is an extremely safe place and Singaporeans are proud of this achievement. While it was necessary to introduce certain restrictive laws to detain a small group of undesirable elements, the outcome has been enhanced safety for the maximum of the population.

What is important for the government is to make transparent to the international community that these laws are not abused and that sufficient safeguards are present in the system to ensure this. The elected president and the Advisory Council on Criminal Law can advice the government on the various cases with reference to the above legislation.

Another major criticism leveled at the government has been with regard to press freedom. The Press and Printing (Act) empowers the government to deny licenses, which are renewable annually, to anyone who threatens the well-being of the country.

In view of the delicate multiracial and multi-religious balance in the country there is a need to ensure that inflammatory literature and press reports which could incite domestic instability, are prevented from circulating in the country. This is an important aspect of good governance and this is something that the Singapore government cannot take for granted, especially at a time when ethnic backgrounds have become an issue of a worldwide scale.

Dr. Bilveer Singh teaches at the National University of Singapore.