maruah

 

We write to express our dismay at the attempt to prosecute Mr Alex Au for contempt of court and the reports about the Media Development Authority (MDA) seeking to regulate online media platforms the Breakfast Network and The Independent Singapore.

The members of MARUAH, as Singapore citizens and human rights activists, are concerned that these actions will further shrink the space for public discourse in Singapore. Robust debate, diverse views, questioning and criticism, as well as a healthy media landscape, are all critical to the development of a functional democracy.

Criticism of key institutions like the judiciary is best addressed through a right of reply by way of well-reasoned rebuttals, not by this reliance on the archaic legal action of “scandalizing the judiciary”, which the UK Law Commission has described as “an infringement of freedom of expression and out of step with social attitudes” that “would do little to reinforce respect for the judiciary.” If the article in question by Mr Au was incorrect, then the better thing to do is to rebut him in public. Using criminal sanctions against him will not convince the public that he was wrong.

Meanwhile, a healthy media landscape calls for diverse, independent voices that also need to have the space to be commercially viable. The MDA is reportedly requiring the Breakfast Network and The Independent Singapore to provide details on their shareholders and subscribers. These are overly-intrusive requirements, going far beyond what would be necessary to satisfy the stated objective of preventing foreign influence over the media, and will only serve to choke these outlets, even if they choose to comply.

The right to freedom of expression is enshrined in our Constitution, in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and even in the ASEAN Human Rights Declaration signed by the Government. Yet, the Government’s recent actions are highly regressive, and serve to limit the space for expression instead of expanding it. In 2004, then-Deputy Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong said in a landmark speech to the Harvard Club: “I have no doubt that our society must open up further… Looking ahead, one important task of the government will be to promote further civic participation, and continue to progressively widen the limits of openness… We will promote a political culture which responds to people’s desire for greater participation, in a manner which supports Singapore’s growth as a nation.”

We urge the Government to remain true to its promises and so seek the reversal of these actions against Mr Au, the Breakfast Network and The Independent Singapore.

Ms Braema Mathi
President
MARUAH Singapore

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

看似坟场墓地 社区花圃设计引争议

社区花园圃被设计成长方形,一块块整齐排列着,乍看之下以为是坟场,令人感到毛骨悚然,引起人们争议。 有关的社区园圃设立于菜市路第41座组屋底楼,形状大小相同,由水泥矮墙围起来的16个种植区被木珊栏围起来。 附近居民都表示看到这个像坟墓的花圃,真的很让人心底发毛。 65岁的德士司机表示,该处原本是被围起来的空草地,工人们突然施工建设花圃,其实是好事,但是没想到花圃的设计如此令人害怕。 另一居民也反映,花圃设计很奇怪,从高处看下来,就好似摆放着16口棺材,因此质疑为何不将花圃设计到和其他地方一样,就在平地上种植。 也有者则认为花圃会看起来像墓地,是因为尚未栽种任何植物。 他们认为设置水泥矮墙和木珊栏是必要的,因为可以避免影响人行道、防止泥土流失,也能防止居民“抢地盘”的问题。

SDP’s Dr Chee Soon Juan chides PM Lee’s tone in May Day speech; warns that PAP is to blame if SG enters another lockdown

“Mr Lee and his Ministers would do well to focus their attention…

社论:闪耀人权光辉的中华传统思想

有读者向本社反映,人权是“舶来品”,是老外搞的一套,争取、崇尚人权形同崇洋媚外。这似乎是说,中华传统思想中,并没有“以人为本”的信念,此言差矣。 那么,在中华传统思想中,有“人权”的概念吗?找遍中华古代经典肯定是没有“人权”一词的,应是近代直接由“human right”翻译而来。虽然人权人权是西方文化的产物,但是我们老祖宗的智慧,却在千百年前就闪耀着人权的光辉。 在中国古代社会中,关于尊重人的基本生存权、平等和和谐共处的精神,在中华传统文化中非常丰富,信手捏来:己所不欲勿施于人,若别人不愿意,绝不强加事物在他人身上,其实就是敬重彼此权益的一种体现。以下我们再举些例子: 孟子:民为贵,社稷次之,君为轻 就是把百姓福祉放在首位,其次是社会发展,再来才是领袖。其实这都体现了儒家思想中,重视人民百姓、仁爱世人的主张,把人的权益放在首位。 其他类似倡议人民权益的说法,还有“民为邦本,本固邦存”,“君以民存,亦以民亡”、“天下为公”。“天下非一人之天下也,天下之天下也”等等。 所以如果古代天子施暴政失民心,人民处在水生火热中,很容易造成农民起义,推翻暴政,改朝换代。 有教无类 — 平等的受教育权利 不分贫富贵贱,都有受教育的权利,所以我们的先辈下南洋,仍然不忘教育,兴办学府让莘莘学子求取学问,成人成才为国做贡献。…

雇员控诉公司歧视聘雇 人力部澄清:“并非事实真相”

日前一名员工在网路上控诉公司以外国人才取代她,随后向人力部寻求协助无果的故事引起网民的关注,人力部于14日发表声明澄清并非“事件的真相”,同时她称劳资政公平与良好雇佣联盟(TAFEP)未跟进案件并未属实。 此事由维权人士吴家和于3月6日在脸书所转载,随后由本社英语站报导。该名化名“劳拉”的女士,声称其公司欲聘请来自香港的外国人才,以此取代她的职位。随后她找上人力部,但被转介到劳资政公平与良好雇佣联盟。 她表示,自己也听从人力部的指示,立即联系TAFEP。然而等到她寻求国务资政张志贤和人力部长杨莉明帮助、且威胁公开此事,TAFEP才给予她回应。 TAFEP联系劳拉并给予建议,即等到她收到遣散费后再来进行投诉,因为他们无法保证公司在调查期间是否会提供遣散费。当时劳拉已离开公司两个月。 劳拉声称,如果她不签署“公司免责”信函,人力部与TAFEP无法保证他的遣散费,而他的公司也表示若她不签,公司就不会支付遣散费。 她阐述,这就等同于“企业霸凌”(corporate bullying)。 与此同时,她认为人力部也在默许这种情况发生,她表示,“人力部对于裁员都了如指掌,因为公司裁员是需要向人力部报告,而且他们也批准了香港人才的EP,让她取代我的职位。” “人力部有怀疑过这个外国人才正是取代本地劳动力的可能吗? 仅仅因为它是“公司内部调动”,所以他们就不再质疑了吗?” 本社随后也联系了劳拉的雇主与TAFEP取得回应,当时没有任何一方的答复。 曾公开劳拉真名随后又撤回…