Leong Sze Hian / Columnist

I refer to media reports that at least three Burmese activists were forced to leave Singapore after authorities decided not to review their visas, and that three Burmese Singapore permanent residents (PRs) will not be allowed to re-enter Singapore should they leave as their re-entry permits have not been extended.

Last year, we saw that practically the entire world, including Singapore and all the ASEAN countries, express their abhorrence at the cruel and relentless killing, beating, arrest and torture of tens of thousands of monks and ordinary people in Burma.

There were protests in almost every country in the world. In Singapore, Burmese nationals (of which there has been an estimated number of 100,000 in total), Singaporeans, and expatriates all took part in various peaceful gatherings to protest against the actions of the Burmese military junta.

Even our own students in the tertiary institutions held a Myanmar Peace Awareness Day in October last year to raise awareness of the oppression the Burmese people face. (See TOC’s report).

The ASEAN charter provides for a Human Rights body under article 14 of the charter. The preamble to the charter states:

ADHERING to the principles of democracy, the rule of law and good governance, respect for and protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms.

What message are we sending to the rest of the world by this action especially when Singapore was the Chair of ASEAN until last month?

For those who have to leave Singapore because their visas are not renewed – can they return to Burma? Will their safety and lives be at risk? They may also be unable to obtain residency status in another country, with such short notice of departure. Will they end up as temporary refugees?

Similarly, for the PRs affected, it may be tantamount to being confined in Singapore, as they will not be allowed to return if they leave. If they are unable to obtain residency from another country, they may never be able to leave.

I feel very sorry for these Burmese patriots, who were never charged for breaking any laws in Singapore – whose only crime perhaps was to express their patriotism for their country and solidarity with their fellow citizens and their plight.

By this action, we may be inviting the wrath of human rights organisations, activists, and peoples of the world.

Are we not, in a way, telling the whole world that we support the military junta?

Are we the only country to penalise Burmese protestors in such a manner?

By this action, will Singapore‘s international reputation as a first world country be affected?

Are we also not adding credence to the International Bar Association’s (IBA) 72-page report on human rights and the rule of law in Singapore?

I am very proud of Singapore on our 43rd birthday – whilst the Mas Selamat escape was perhaps an embarassment which was beyond our control, this latest action against the Burmese in Singapore may bring shame to Singapore out of our own doing.

Whilst I may not agree with statements that Western democracies may “not like” Singapore (“Why they hate Singapore“, ST, Aug 9), this action may invite more people in the world to “like us” less.

In this connection, perhaps we should all read Straits Times journalist Koh Kian Beng’s article, “Patriotism wilts in apathy’s harsh glare“, ST, Aug 8; which said quite aptly:

“Would enough Singaporeans do as the Myanmar nationals did if Singapore were, touch wood, beset by political instability too?”

One wonders if the Singapore Government had deliberately waited until it handed over the Chairmanship of ASEAN to Thailand in early August before taking the latest actions against the Burmese students.

It would be tremendously sad if this were so. For then the Government’s support for the ASEAN Human Rights body is proved to be nothing more than empty talk.

For why would we not renew the Burmeses’ visas, knowing full well the dire consequences they would face if ever they stepped foot in Burma again while the junta is in power?

Is it any wonder why we’re always so hated by others?

We must also wonder why our Government allows Burmese generals to seek treatment in Singapore hospitals but is now penalising Burmese students and activists for speaking out against the atrocities meted out by these same generals on its own citizens, including monks.

———–

Foreign Affairs Minister George Yeo replying to questions in Parliament on October 22, 2007:

However, we could not stay silent when the Government violently cracked down on peaceful demonstrators including Buddhist monks. ASEAN would have lost all credibility otherwise. Developments in Myanmar cast a pall on the entire region and have been raised at the UN Security Council. ASEAN’s policy of non-interference cannot be rigidly applied when internal developments in a member country affect the rest of us. This is not the first time that ASEAN is addressing the situation in Myanmar. At the Summit in Singapore in 2000, ASEAN leaders met privately with Myanmar leader Senior General Than Shwe to express their concerns. In 2003, ASEAN Foreign Ministers publicly called on Myanmar to release Aung San Suu Kyi.

The violent suppression of dissent in Myanmar recently has evoked outrage in ASEAN and around the world. As ASEAN Chair, Singapore had to discharge its responsibility. The Prime Minister called all his ASEAN counterparts who agreed with him that ASEAN should issue a strong statement. PM also wrote to Senior General Than Shwe. I was at the United Nations in New York when the situation broke. After settling the ASEAN Charter, the ASEAN Foreign Ministers confronted our Myanmar counterpart. They agreed for me to issue the statement that I read out to the international media in their presence.

There is a lot of anger in Myanmar and among the Myanmar people in Singapore – there are tens of thousands of them here. I met some of them two days ago at the Burmese temple here. There is great frustration…. So there is no way the current situation can go on like this for a long time. There has to be a genuine dialogue. It cannot be a case where the leaders just goes (sic) through the motion so that things will calm down, and then back to status quo ante.

———–

Additional reporting by Andrew Loh.

———–

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

Celebrate National Day – but is this necessary?

At S$3,300 for each billboard, are town councils spending unnecessarily?

【冠状病毒19】陈笃生医院实验室出现人为失误 裕廊西女中学生没确诊

早前一名13岁的裕廊西中学女学生,被误传确诊冠状病毒19,证实时陈笃生医院实验室出现人为失误,把两名病患的拭子检测样本标记错误。 据卫生部和陈笃生医院今日(7月14日)所发出的文告指出,于本月10日公布确诊的13岁裕廊西女学生病例实属失误。该名女学生并没有感染冠毒,也没有出现学校感染,而是医院实验室工作人员将女学生和另一名客工的的拭子检测样本标记错误。 女学生之后再接受两次检测,都出现阴性结果,而目前女学生也已经出院。 确诊客工目前已经入住国家传染病中心,情况稳定。 医院已经针对此事,向两名病患发出通知,并对所造成的困扰和不安表示抱歉。 陈笃生医院实验室已经就此事,对同一期进行的检测展开核查工作,确保没有出现任何失误,并将采取额外措施,避免类似事件重演。

ST Forum: Jobs Support Scheme may help employees, but it adds pressure to employers

A member of the public, Low Boon Seong, wrote to ST Forum…

受伤康复即重返工作岗位 七旬清洁翁坚持自力更生

在淡滨尼8道891A座组屋,有一名70余岁老翁每天在这里,进行组屋底层的清洁工作,风雨不改。老翁是该栋组屋的清洁工,自身住在淡滨尼91街,家中子女已成家立业,他自己独居。 去年4月15日早上10时左右,老翁因为雨天地板湿滑,在该区第893座组屋底层摔跤,跌伤了手脚,也把头跌破了,全身是血的坐在地板上。救护员随后赶到现场给予帮助。 居民怀疑老翁被辞职 当时一名经过的男居民见状,将老翁被施救的情况拍下,并在随后联络《联合晚报》。他指出,老翁随后住院,前后一个月余。老翁出院后,仍然每天下午到组屋扫地清理,晚上回家。 惟,他指出,老翁康复后来进行清理工作时,已经没有在穿着之前上班时的制服了,而是身穿便服,且衣衫褴褛,不禁怀疑老翁是否被辞职了。 而记者在接获有关消息后前往查问,发现老翁一手拿着夹子,一手推着手推车,在租屋区边走着边捡垃圾。 在受询及近况时,老翁仅表示去年的确跌倒受伤,但是目前已经逐渐康复,并且还有去中医处复诊。而他伤愈后并没有通知清洁公司,更没有理会公司劝他离职的建议,自行开始工作。 雇主曾劝老翁停止工作 淡滨尼市镇会发言人在受询及时表示,老翁受聘于清洁承包公司,该公司在老翁受伤时,曾致函劝请老人家停止工作。 市镇会表示,多次对老翁的身体状况表示关心,并多次联系老翁的女儿,但是对方似乎没有停止工作的意思。 市镇会也曾提醒清洁承包公司,为老翁安排体检等,确保对方的健康状况良好,以便能继续工作。 至于老翁衣衫褴褛一事,市镇会表示理解老翁目前的情况,当局和义工们也曾经探访老翁,以便随时给予对方所需要的帮助。市镇会在过去数年,每月都有捐赠干净的衣服给老翁。…