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

杨莉明称上周已加强措施 惟客工组织曾警告客工宿舍存风险

由于本地涌现客工宿舍新感染群,特别是S11榜鹅宿舍和卓源东路Westlite宿舍感染群,分别有63名和28名客工确诊,为此跨政府部门工作小组把上述两个宿舍列为隔离区。 S11榜鹅宿舍有1万3000客工,卓源东路 Westlite宿舍也有6千800客工。当局表示这些客工不能开工,现场将部署医疗支援,并提供食物和生活必需品。 然而,人力部长杨莉明却在脸书贴文表示,从上周起客工宿舍就已落实更严谨措施,例如和宿舍管理者关闭非必要共用设备、避免不同楼层间参杂交流、加强宿舍间安全距离、错开用餐和休闲时间等。 随着有两个宿舍被宣布为隔离区,杨莉明指所有其他宿舍也会提升安全疏离措施。 “待在住宿如和家人一起   仍有传播风险” 她也指出,政府将安排小部分必要领域工作的客工搬出宿舍,到更合适的住宿。杨莉明也解释,在宿舍里客工就像和家属一样经常互动,仍有传播风险,当局将采取进一步预防措施,减少互动。同时,减少宿舍中的人数。 若有客工不适,则将安排到独立的病房。 客工亦重:工友12至20人挤一间房 不过,早在上月23日,本地客工组织“客工亦重(TWC2)”主席德比弗地,就已在《海峡时报》论坛警告,一些工友住在一间容纳12至20人的房间,且搭罗厘去上班也是肩并肩搭车,都不符合社交安全距离的措施。 而在3月31日,开始出现客工宿舍感染群,该组织于本月3日再次呼吁,政府应提早宣布措施,若宿舍出现感染群,将如何迁徙安排这些客工,让本地居民得到保障。

GE2020 Debate: SDP, PSP, WP and PAP on helping local businesses to survive the recession

During the GE2020 Debate that was broadcasted live last night (1 July),…

内政团队科技局12月成立 议员提醒“科技是把双刃剑”

在过去两天的国会中,除了周一通过的《防火安全(修正)法案》,国会也通过《点对点载客业法案》以及《内政团队科技局法案》。 其中《内政团队科技局法案》将促成今年12月,成立新的内政团队科技局。 内政部将提升对于科技开发的投入,计划从2019财年的9.79亿新元,提升至2025年的19亿新元。而支持提升科技技术的关键举措,就是成立一个专门的科技机构。 据了解,内政部有意招揽内政团队中不同部门约1300名科研与科技人才,专注进行有关罪案防范和紧急反应等科技研发。 人力部长暨内政部第二部长杨莉明声称,科技局将为一些新岗位另招聘科学家和工程师,有望为国人创造就业机会。 她也解释,科技局是内政团队转型的重要环节,科技局需确保科研与科技投资增加能带来效益,而内政团队的操作环境需求亦有别于其他政府单位,所以一些科研创新方面,也必须量身定做。 内政团队也将设立一个中央内政团队操作中心,例如在面对恐袭等事件,重心负责协调紧急应对方案,并运用科技加强各单位沟通。 王丽婷忧长期监控下影响国民心理素质 不过,也有议员在辩论时提出,提升科技监控国民的隐忧。其中官委议员王丽婷就警惕,“科技是把双刃剑”,用以防范罪案于未然的科技,也同样可能对国民的心理和隐私造成影响。 她举例,去年新科工程获得750万新元价值的工程,在全岛安装约11万各具有人工智能功能的监控摄像,可以识别人脸、年龄、族群和岁数,透过这些监控资讯,政府部门可以迅速针对诸如不守法公民、地铁故障、交通事故等迅速反应,也能敦促一般市民切莫以身试法。 “然而,我们需切记,公民的福祉不仅只限于人身安全。”王丽婷引述牛津大学数码伦理研究所(Digital Ethics…