Let's not turn human rights into a battle ground

June 14, 2008
THINKING ALOUD

Let's not turn human rights into a battle ground

By Lydia Lim, Senior Political Correspondent

VETERAN civil society activist Constance Singam thinks human-rights 'fanatics' are what Singapore needs.

The Attorney-General, Professor Walter Woon, disagrees.

In a recent speech, he warned against those who have turned human rights into a religion, are fanatical about them and presume to dictate to others what is acceptable and what is not.

There is a 'misconception that Singapore officialdom is against human rights', he said at the launch of the Law Society's new Public and International Law Committee.

'What we are against is the assumption of some people that when they define what human rights are, that decision is the decision for the rest of humanity,' he added.

Prof Woon also warned against those who seek to use human rights to advance their own political agendas.

His speech drew a hard-hitting response from Ms Singam, president of women's group Aware, and Nominated MP Siew Kum Hong, a member of Maruah(Malay for dignity), the Singapore working committee for an Asean human rights mechanism.

Mr Siew's letter suggested that Maruah read the AG's speech as a 'dismissal of sincerely held views'. He argued that the evolution of human rights would be 'stunted' if those who dissented from the majority point of view were 'cast as trouble-makers pursuing their own causes under the guise of human rights'.

I viewed the exchange, in the letters pages of The Straits Times and Today newspapers, with mixed feelings.

Such an open discussion of human rights is a welcome change from the past, when people tended to skirt around the issue because the dominant view then was of human rights as a Western construct foisted on Asian societies.

At the same time, it was disconcerting to see distrust between officialdom and civil society bubbling up so early in the dialogue process.

To be sure, what constitutes a universal human right and what does not is highly contested, so disagreement between the different camps is hardly surprising.

The worry is that the walls between these camps would solidify to an extent that dialogue becomes difficult, even impossible.

Why did Prof Woon see a need to warn against fanaticism in human rights?

I believe it is because a fanatic is one with whom it is very difficult to have a reasoned discussion. Such an individual is so extreme and fixed in his world view that he does not tolerate perspectives different from his own.

Or as Prof Woon put it, 'these are people who evidently believe that they and their values represent the apex of human moral development'.

So the warning against fanaticism is a warning against close-mindedness and intolerance.

I believe Ms Singam and Mr Siew actually share Prof Woon's wariness of those who approach human rights with closed minds.

In her letter, Ms Singam sets out the historical reasons for civil society activists' fears of being shut out by officials.

'We have seen over many years Singapore officialdom's strategy of undermining the passionately held views of advocates of human rights - for instance, 'liberal democratic views' and 'feminism' have been dismissed as 'corrupt Western views',' she wrote.

I find it unfortunate that Ms Singam has conflated the terms fanatics and advocates. For as Prof Woon made clear in his reply to her, his criticism was aimed not at human-rights activists but at those who are fanatical, that is, extreme, in their views.

Like Ms Singam, I firmly believe that Singapore needs human-rights champions, but I would like to point out that we need them not just in civil society but within the ranks of officialdom as well.

I agree with her that the social realities we are confronted with show that respect for human rights is crucial to the right conduct of relations within societies, and between states.

The mistreatment of the weak and marginalised members of our society, for instance - including contract workers, migrant workers, the elderly, the disabled - stem from a lack of respect for these rights, which every person possesses by virtue of being human.

Similarly, global revulsion at the Myanmar junta's callousness to the suffering of its own people in the wake of Cyclone Nargis stems from our innate sense that here is a case of large-scale violation of people's right to life, food, shelter and medical treatment.

I am glad that today, we no longer see human rights as a problem but as part of the solution to new challenges.

Indeed, Prof Woon made clear in his letter that he welcomes a discussion by Singaporeans on human rights.

'A constructive dialogue on what our obligations are to our fellow citizens and the guests who live among us is healthy. We must decide where we draw the line between individual rights and the common good,' he wrote.

My hope is that we can proceed in the true spirit of dialogue, and not let the process disintegrate into a battle where different camps believe they must do what is necessary to triumph over the other.

The aim of a dialogue is not to win, but to learn with and from each other how best to proceed.

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which the international community adopted six decades ago, is about making that journey together.

The United Nations General Assembly proclaimed the declaration as 'a common standard of achievement for all peoples and all nations'.

It acknowledged that it would take time for these rights to win acceptance, and called on its members to 'strive by teaching and education to promote respect for these rights and freedoms and by progressive measures, national and international, to secure their universal and effective recognition and observance'.

One cannot impose respect for human rights on others.

It is a value to be shared and taught and passed on to the next generation.

To attempt to force one's conception of human rights on others is to contradict the spirit of the declaration itself, which enshrines every person's right to 'freedom of thought, conscience and religion' and to 'freedom of opinion and expression'.

Here in Singapore, we need both officials and activists, with expertise and experience in the field of human rights, to help light the way forward.

Despite their differences of views in specific areas, I hope they will not see each other as enemies but as allies.

The goal is to protect the dignity of each person, especially those who are most vulnerable.

lydia@sph.com.sg