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

在美被控盗取他人个资等三控状 费雷拉不认罪

涉泄露我国1.42万艾滋带原者个资的费雷拉,于本月19日在美国接受审讯时,对包括盗取他人个资等控状不认罪。 费雷拉目前共面对三项控状,包括涉嫌非法盗窃他人个资、涉蓄意散播这些资料,以及意图威胁勒索新加坡政府。 美国肯塔基州联邦法庭,将在5月7日审理费雷拉一案,预计审讯将持续三天。目前,费雷拉仍继续关押在美国费耶特县拘留中心。 费雷拉面对的所有指控,一旦罪成可被判刑七年。其中勒索意图下非法转移他人资料,可被判五年监禁和不超过25万美元罚款。 美国法庭在本月初也命令费雷拉,必须在3月29日前,永久删除他在自家电脑和任何储存设备保存的所有艾滋病患资料。在网络上张贴、刊载的资料都要删除。 此前,费雷拉被指从2018年6月至今年初,从美国肯德基州对一些媒体机构包括CNN、《海峡时报》、母舰以及Alvinology等发电邮泄露这些病患个资。 在2月16日,他再次把13名曾在樟宜监狱接受身体检查的艾滋带原者囚犯的名单,泄露给一些政府和媒体机构。 在本月22日联邦调查局提呈的证词,显示费雷拉承认他持有来自新加坡的艾滋病患数据,而如果可以说服新加坡政府释放他的丈夫吕德祥医生,他将会交出这些个资,然后自杀。否则,他将把这些资料公诸于众。 美国法官认为,费雷拉可能不仅违反了新加坡法令,也抵触了美国的法律。

读者强调国会直播乃公共服务 让选民监督议员表现

日前,有读者在媒体投书,公开呼吁新加坡国会应进行直播,让国民有机会观看完整的国会议事。 对此,傅海燕新闻秘书 Michele Khoo则在5月15日回函,认为新加坡人希望他们的心声受到讨论和在国会得到回答,因此直播下,“公共表演的成分无可避免”。 她强调国会是认真议事的平台,国会辩论可以激烈但言辞需清醒,议员需应对议题和其复杂性,避免在国会中“装腔作势”。因此国会无意进行现场直播,而改变国会议事的氛围。 很快就有民众投书回应打脸。名为Isaac Tan BaoRong的读者,在《今日报》发表看法,直言对于傅海燕新闻秘书的“表演平台论”感到困惑。 这位读者也是独立剧评家,直言只要有某人在做某事、而有旁人在看,就具备一定的表演呈现元素。但他本身完全支持国会直播,特别是网络直播。 他表示,能理解安排专门的国会电视直播频道不太实际,但同样,傅海燕新闻秘书称国会电视直播需求量低,但她也回避了网络的浏览量。 这位读者强调,国会现场直播,乃是公共服务,且不应与有没有收视率混为一谈。“政府理应让公民有机会区监督他们的议员和国会议事,至于如何善用直播应取决于民。” 留下一份完整的国会议事记录,方便民众在任何时候都可查看。只有逐字讲稿的议事记录,未能完整呈现议员在国会表现的全貌和辩论氛围。…

【冠状病毒19】5月31日新增518确诊

根据卫生部文告,截至本月31日中午12时,本地新增518例冠状病毒19确诊。 新增病例大多是住宿舍工作准证持有者,至于三起社区病例,都是本地公民或永久居民。 本地累计病例已增至3万4884例。当局仍在搜集病例详情,并将在晚些时候公布。

Minister Masagos: Tampines will be a dead town if hawker centre stops operating 24 hours

In a ST report today (‘Hawker debate: Figuring out a way forward‘,…