~ By Chee Soon Juan ~

I refer to the article published on your site, "Dr. Chee should be permitted to attend the Oslo Freedom Forum" by Ghui. I quote the following paragraphs:

Whether Dr. Chee’s views are right or wrong is not the point. The point is that he was willing to speak his mind when many people would not have. Perhaps he was needlessly antagonistic but again, that is a separate issue altogether.

Dr. Chee spoke out, was deemed defamatory and made bankrupt in the process. People have speculated that the defamation suits were but a means to discredit a dissenting force. But again, that is a topic for another day. Rightly or wrongly, Dr. Chee has inherited the mantle of “poster child for what not to do in politics” from JBJ and by so doing, is perceived as a martyr for freedom of speech, a subset of human rights.

These two paragraphs in Ghui's piece, 'Dr. Chee should be permitted to attend the Oslo Freedom Forum', reinforce a perception that needs to be addressed. The paragraph starts off with: “Whether Dr Chee's views are right or wrong is not the point.”

But it is. It is the point that we are not a democracy, it is the point that our rights have been taken away, and it is the point that many of our problems today stem from the fact that we do not have political rights and therefore cannot change policy and/or the ruling party.

Whether I am right or wrong is the point. If I am wrong then the PAP is right. On this point, Singaporeans must take sides. We must make up our minds about what we want: A free and democratic country with Singaporeans enjoying their rights in a multi-party system or continued one-party rule.

It is also important to note that these are not my views but the fundamental freedoms that are written into our country's constitution as well as the United Nations' Universal Declaration of Human Rights guaranteed to all Singaporeans.

These freedoms are not academic concepts; they are the very tools that the people use to protect ourselves from government overreach and policies that work against our interest.

Without our human rights – which include our political rights and civil liberties – we cannot address the bread-and-butter issues that affect our everyday lives.

Let me cite a concrete example. More than ten years ago, my colleagues and I in the SDP saw the problem that was developing from the PAP's Foreign Talent policy. We had warned that the influx of foreign workers was suppressing wages and unfairly penalising Singaporeans in the job market.

To counter the PAP's policy, we put forward the Singaporeans First policy as well as introducing a minimum wage law. We even made these our campaign platform in the 2001 general elections.

But because we did not have the freedom of assembly, we could not communicate our policies and the reasons for them, to the people directly. And because we did not, and still don't, have freedom of the media (which is another political right) our warnings were effectively censored from public discussion and debate.

These restrictions on our democratic rights allowed the PAP to cast the SDP and our policies aside and, worse, to distract the attention of Singaporeans away from its immigration and wage policies. In the intervening decade the government flooded Singapore with foreign workers, giving rise to the socio-economic predicament with which we are saddled today.

The inescapable truth is that we can't have economic rights without human rights. It is a false choice that the PAP has forced upon us. Tragically, many Singaporeans fell for the ruse and sacrificed our political rights for economic gain, leading us to the present situation where we are both politically emasculated and economically in a precarious state.

Human rights are important in and of itself. It allows us to live in dignity, respect and compassion. But an equally important reason why we fight so hard for human rights in this country is this: To protect the economic well-being of Singaporeans. I repeat, human rights is not an airy-fairy concept reserved for the chattering class but a practical weapon that ordinary citizens like you and me use to protect ourselves against unjust policies.

Ghui also mentioned that the late J B Jeyaretnam and I were “needlessly antagonistic” and therefore became the “poster child for what not to do in politics.” Unfortunately, the reference point upon which such a subjective notion is assessed has very much been set by the PAP.

The idea that human rights cannot make us rich, that protests will cause pandemonium, that democracy is a Western concept unsuited to Asians is one that has been pounded into our consciousness by the PAP over the decades.

It is based on such a mind-set that the ruling party has portrayed Jeyaretnam and I as destructive and confrontational forces who must be stopped. This is contrasted with other types of opposition that are “moderate” and, therefore, more acceptable by the ruling party.

Singaporeans must see through the PAP's agenda because it knows that the most effective way to hold on to political power is to deny Singaporeans their democratic rights and the most effective way to deny the people their rights is to demonise those who advocate these rights.

Its punitive actions of defamation suits and criminal prosecutions against legitimate political speech and activities must be seen in this light. More importantly, it must not be used as a yardstick by which opposition leaders are judged on what is necessary and what is needless antagonism, and on what to do and what not to do in politics.

I hope that some of these notions about human rights and the kind of opposition we should have can be corrected. Nevertheless, I thank Ghui for an insightful article and TOC for publishing my response in full.

___________________________

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

涉违法选举法令 塔纳通议员资格被“暂停”

泰国宪法法院星期四(5月23日)在该国议会开跑的前一天,一致通过议决,以涉嫌违反选举法令为由,下令暂时撤销受千禧一代欢迎的未来前进党党魁塔纳通的议员资格。 也是前商业大亨的塔纳通在2月份登记竞选该国3月24日举行的大选时,被选委会指控持有一家媒体公司的股份,触犯了选举法令。 塔纳通当时表示这是无中生有的指控,并表示他已经于1月份将有关媒体公司V-Luck Media的股份转让给其母亲了。 宪法法院表示,在确定是否违反选举规则之前,塔纳通必须“暂停”履行议员的指责。 指责军政府阻止他入议会 在法院发布有关命令数小时后,塔纳通在未来前进党总部召开新闻发布会。他在会上指出,即使国会议员职责被暂停,但是他的国会议员地位仍然保持。“虽然我被禁止进入政界,但我将为投票支持我党的630万服务。” 他也表示,他参与首相席位竞选,就是为了阻止军政府,停止独裁统治。 泰国参政者皆被禁止持有媒体公司的股份,以防止出现利益冲突。 宪法法院命令是在泰国议会开幕前夕下达,有关的议会将于星期五,在泰国国王玛哈·哇集拉隆功主持下展开,并且预计将在下周投票选出泰国的新首相。 未来前进党在本届国家大选中取得第三的排名,在议会中赢得80个议席。该党曾矢言要结束军政府的统治,并修改2017年宪法。 上周,塔纳通成功为其政党加入的联盟取得足够的选票,以推翻军政府支持的前首相巴育。…

“为了国家敢敢发言” 国人社媒上哀悼严崇涛

我国资深前高级公务员严崇涛于8月20日与世长辞,国人都在社交媒体上进行哀悼。 在主流媒体的评论区中,可以看到不少网民留言,引述已故严崇涛为国制定政策的片段话语。 脸书用户Jeffrey Tan指出,新加坡失去一位“善良、有能力”,且会谈及新加坡真实一面的人。 Alvin Ann表示,严先生曾发表撤回高级部长薪金的评论,反观现在年轻一代的部长们则 “害怕” 在内阁发言。 除了对这名前高级公务员致敬和感激之外,网民也指出,严崇涛在和部长说话时,一样是无所畏惧的。 Denis Edward希望现在的我国公务员除了争取高薪之外,也能够效法严先生。网友认为,现在的公仆们都为了保障高薪酬,选择“安全路线”,目前状况很难有任何改变。 不少网友和Basil…

Two servicemen charged and fined in military court for their roles in Aloysius Pang's death

Two soldiers pleaded guilty in military court on19 November (Tuesday) in relation…

No lockdown for Indonesia despite continuous rise in COVID-19 cases

Indonesia President Joko Widodo (Jokowi) has emphasized that he will not impose…