Siew Kum Hong

We have spent more than enough years hearing about our obligations as citizens without a corresponding discourse on our rights.

I came late to activism, and later to human rights activism. Although I’ve always firmly believed in the importance of human rights, I never really delved into the subject, other than some scratching of the surface during my law school days. Like so many other Singaporeans, I took subjects that were more “practical” and “relevant” to my future professional career.

Serves me right then for the steep learning curve I am now experiencing, just when time is at a greater premium than at any other point in my life, because I now understand that human rights are at least as practical and relevant to my life as a whole as anything else out there.

The most profound realisation that has struck me since I started taking baby tip-toes into the sea of human rights activism is how human rights permeate so many aspects of life. Many, if not most, Singaporeans mistakenly associate the term with the lofty ideals of civil and political rights, such as the rights to freedom of expression and freedom of assembly.

But it is a mistake to limit one’s conception of human rights in such a manner. They might be the most headline-grabbing, but they fail to do justice to just how many aspects of daily life human rights are concerned with.

After all, human rights include social, cultural and economic rights as well. For example, Article 25(1) of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights provides that

Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.

Agreement to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is a pre-condition to membership in the United Nations. Singapore as a UN member-state therefore has the obligation to comply with Article 25. I think we fall at least a little bit short, especially on the second part of the article.

Here are two other examples of how seemingly mundane matters that were recently in the news in Singapore can be re-cast as human rights issues when analysed through the prism of human rights.

Firstly, the 1June edition of the Sunday Times carried a story about how children were not having meaningful school holidays at all, what with tuition and enrichment classes galore. Well, Article 31 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC), which Singapore has acceded to, provides:

1. States Parties recognize the right of the child to rest and leisure, to engage in play and recreational activities appropriate to the age of the child and to participate freely in cultural life and the arts.

2. States Parties shall respect and promote the right of the child to participate fully in cultural and artistic life and shall encourage the provision of appropriate and equal opportunities for cultural, artistic, recreational and leisure activity.

I certainly agree that parents acting in the best interest of the child and with due respect for the views of the child should be entitled to decide whether the child should go for an endless stream of classes during their precious school holidays.

However, I think it is valid for us to question the role of the state, and specifically the education system, in facilitating, encouraging and perpetuating such a state of affairs, and whether the state should institute changes for better compliance with its obligations under the CRC.

Secondly, we do not require foreign domestic workers (FDWs) to be given a mandatory day off (whether weekly, monthly, or even at all). Article 7 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (which Singapore has not signed) provides for

the right of everyone to the enjoyment of just and favourable conditions of work which ensure, in particular … (d) Rest, leisure and reasonable limitation of working hours and periodic holidays with pay, as well as remuneration for public holidays.

Article 25 of the International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families, which Singapore (and to be fair, most other receiving countries) has not signed, provides:

1. Migrant workers shall enjoy treatment not less favourable than that which applies to nationals of the State of employment in respect of remuneration and:

a. Other conditions of work, that is to say, overtime, hours of work, weekly rest, holidays with pay, safety, health, termination of the employment relationship and any other conditions of work which, according to national law and practice, are covered by this term; …

2. It shall not be lawful to derogate in private contracts of employment from the principle of equality of treatment referred to in paragraph 1 of the present article. …”

Meanwhile, Singapore has acceded to the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW), but ironically with a reservation that withholds the labour rights under the Employment Act from FDWs. So much for elimination of discrimination.

What I have sought to do in these examples is to illustrate that many issues not commonly associated with human rights can and do have a human rights element. What is lacking in Singapore is the knowledge, awareness, willingness and desire to analyse issues from a rights-based perspective.

Yes, there are many who do not know better. But there are many who do know better, but dare not articulate a rights-based discourse for fear of a negative reaction from officialdom. As a result, they tip-toe around the human rights elephant in the middle of the room.

I think we have spent more than enough years hearing about our obligations as citizens without a corresponding discourse on our rights. The emergence of a rights-based discourse in Singapore is long overdue. There are many different ways in which one can work towards this. I am hopeful that, in my own small way, I am part of this effort.

About the author:

The writer is a Nominated Member of Parliament and corporate counsel. He is a firm believer in the importance of human rights, despite being non-religious and more frequently accused of being overly-moderate than fanatical. Since late last year, he has been part of MARUAH Singapore (www.maruah.org), a human-rights group that seeks to facilitate and inform the establishment of the ASEAN human rights mechanism from a Singapore perspective.

Kum Hong also has a personal blog here.

TOC thanks Kum Hong for taking the time to pen this for us.

—————-

Subscribe
Notify of
0 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
You May Also Like

另两营业商获准证 Ofo接陆交局撤销执照意向书

共享脚车业者Ofo陷入困境至今,几乎走到尽头了,它在新加坡的竞争对手Anywheel将扩大其车队10倍,而新公司Moov Technology已经获得营业准证,将会推出1000辆脚车。 陆路交通管理局(LTA)于星期三(4月3日)宣布,已经向共享脚车业者Ofo发出撤销营业执照意向通知书(Notice of Intention)。 有两周时间陈情 根据当局共享脚车制度,去年9月,总公司在北京的Ofo公司获准在新加坡经营2万5000辆脚车。 然而,Ofo无法达到当局的监管要求,如未能实施在指定停放区的QR码扫描系统,因此有关的营业执照于2月14日被暂时吊销。Ofo当时被下令在3月13日之前,移除所有停放在公共空间的脚车。 Ofo随后获得当局允许延长期限到3月28日,该公司当时表示正在和另一个营业者商量合作恢复营业和满足当局要求的 “洽商关键阶段” 。 当局表示,尽管延长了期限,Ofo仍然无法达到要求。惟,陆交局表示,Ofo如果想要保留这里的营业执照,它有两周的时间提出书面陈情。…

马国丹绒比艾补选国阵狂胜1.5万票 敦马:原以为输两千票

马来西亚刚在上周六进行丹绒比艾国会议席补选,不过执政政府希望联盟竞选团队遭到国阵重挫,国阵候选人黄日昇以1万5086张多数票大胜希盟候选人卡敏及另4名候选人,成功重夺该国席。 黄日昇共获得2万5466张票,希盟候选人卡敏仅1万380张票。国阵得票率高达65.60巴仙,希盟候选人仅26.74巴仙。据了解,华裔和巫裔票回流乃是造成希盟惨败的关键,似有“教训”希盟在一些政策不得人心之意。 丹绒比艾总选民共5万2986名,而补选投票率高达74.43巴仙,,总投票人数为3万8815名。黄日昇也是该选区前国会议员。在509大选不敌希盟莫哈末法立(Mohamed Farid Md Rafik);不过后者在两个月前因心脏病逝世,致使议席悬空需补选。 “未料多数票输这么多” 马国首相兼希望联盟会长敦马哈迪表示,他预计希盟会在该选举败选,原以为国阵的多数票不会超过2000张,孰不知多数票超过预期。 他表示将仔细探讨败北的原因,也接受丹绒比艾选民的决定。 有学者则分析,此次补选失利可能加剧希盟内部的冲突,敦马本身也会面对较大压力,以让位给候任首相安华。    

国际调查:名列全球第七 我国教师每周工作46小时

坡民曾呼吁政府,应减轻教师负担,让他们能够照顾家人、寻找另一半和取得工作-生活平衡。而根据国际调查显示,我国中学教师每周平均工作时间为46个小时,甚至比世界标准的39个小时,还多了7个小时。 该调查涵括48个国家和地区,其中以日本教师的周均工作时间最长,多达56小时。哈萨克斯坦(Kazakhstan)和加拿大艾伯塔省居第二,而我国名列第七位。 虽然比五年前的48小时少了两个小时,但是主要原因是本地教师行政工作减少,而花费在教学上的时间,则从原本的17小时增加到18小时。 这项由经济合作与发展组织(OECD)展开,每五年一次的教与学国际调查(Teaching and Learning International Survey,简称TALIS)旨在为各国提供参照点,以提升教学素质。 行政工作减少 教学时段增加 我国是第二次参加此次网上调查,3280名来自超过160所公立和私立中学的教师参加,而全球共有26万来自美国、芬兰、韩国、中国和澳大利亚等地方的教师参与。 调查显示,除了教师因为行政工作减少,致使每周工作时间从48小时减少至46小时之外,教师耗费在其他部分的事件也有所减少。其中包括了行政工作从原本的5.3小时减少至3.8小时;批改成绩时间从原本的8.7小时减至7.5小时;备课时间从8.4小时减至7.…

How to get funding for your business

By Cristina Beltran Are you looking into starting a new business or experiencing…