TR EMERITUS

Human Rights Watch, 21 January 2010 As Singapore begins to emerge from the international financial crisis and focuses on elections that are likely to be held later this year, the government should act to improve its poor human rights record, Human Rights Watch said in its World Report 2010, The 612-page report, the organization’s 20th annual review of human rights practices around the globe, summarizes major human rights trends in more than 90 nations and territories worldwide. Its chapter on Singapore says the government fails to meet human rights standards in a number of critical areas, including freedom of expression, association, and assembly. While Singapore has touted its prowess as a leading economic nation in Southeast Asia, it continues to falter in respecting the rights of its own population, Human Rights Watch said “Singapore remains the textbook example of a politically repressive state,” said Phil Robertson, deputy Asia director at Human Rights Watch. “Individuals who want to criticize or challenge the ruling party’s hold on power can expect to face a life of harassment, lawsuits, and even prison.” Freedom to express views publicly continues to be largely limited to the tiny Speaker’s Corner in the city-state, while any procession or assembly for a “cause-related activity” must have prior police approval under the Public Order Act of 2009. Draconian laws such as the Internal Security Act (ISA), Criminal Law (Temporary Provisions) Act (CLA), Misuse of Drugs Act (MDA), and Undesirable Publications Act remain available to the government to muzzle peaceful critics. In December 2009, three long-time government critics—Dr. Chee Soon Juan, Chee Siok Chin, and Gandhi Ambalam—were convicted of distributing flyers critical of the government. After refusing to pay fines, all three were sentenced. But appearance-conscious Singapore sometimes forgoes criminal prosecution in favor of other forms of harassment, such as defamation suits seeking punitive damages that snagged the Wall Street Journal and the Far Eastern Economic Review, restrictions on publication licenses under the longstanding Newspaper and Printing Presses Acts, and enforcement actions limiting rights. Human Rights Watch called for the repeal of laws allowing corporal and capital punishment, noting that the penal code authorizes caning for about 30 offenses, and sets out more than 20 drug-related offenses for which capital punishment is mandatory. Singapore resists all calls to rescind arbitrary detention without trial, refuses to recognize that caning constitutes torture or cruel, inhuman and degrading punishment, and insists on maintaining mandatory death penalties for offenses such as drug trafficking that are contrary to international human rights standards, Human Rights Watch criticized Singapore’s continued legal ban on private and consensual sexual relations between men and called for it to be overturned. “As Singapore looks to its future and new elections, the time is long overdue for it to abandon its stubborn defiance of international human rights standards,” Robertson said. “Singapore should have the confidence to trust its people with full freedom of expression, assembly, and association, and recognize that their participation is critical for the country’s continued To read Human Rights Watch’s World Report 2010 chapter on Singapore, please visit: http://www.hrw.org/en/world-report-2010/singapore For more Human Rights Watch reporting on Singapore, please visit: http://www.hrw.org/en/asia/singapore For more information, please contact: In New York, Phil Robertson (English): +1-917-362-4327 (mobile) In London, Brad Adams (English): +44-20-7713-2767; or +44-7908-728-333 (mobile) In New York, Mickey Spiegel (English): +1-212-216-1229 (office)  Read More →

Last week, I was rudely stopped by a SMRT station manager, accused of being a "terrorist", and had my IC taken down. The act of terror? A photograph of a faulty display panel taken by a cellphone camera. The SMRT staff quoted a "Prevention of Terrorism Act", which doesn't exist, and insisted on his authority and reason for demanding my IC. SMRT's reply was that photography and filming is strictly not allowed in our trains and stations. Yet such a "rule" is merely a company policy, and not at all found in the Rapid Transit Systems Regulations. Neither is the policy displayed prominently in stations and trains nor are most commuters aware of it. Moreover, SMRT has even held photography competitions in its stations, where winning entries are displayed prominently. SMRT's staff are supposed to be friendly and helpful. Yet the station manager's conduct clearly proves otherwise. Even my complaints to customer "service" were treated with insincerity and contempt. With service staff in such dismal conditions, how can we expect commuters to be caring and considerate? While an unwitting customer may have done something he's not allowed to do, SMRT's staff could have resolved the issue swiftly, in a cool and calm manner. Is there a need to start treating commuters as criminals or terrorists? An offer was even made to delete the innocuous photograph -- of a malfunctioning display message, not potential bomb sites: apparent to all reasonable eyes that it cannot be used for terrorism activities. Yet the station manager insisted on taking down my IC and wasting everyone's time. The access to such personal information without authority or valid reason is disrespectful and deleterious to a customer's personal security and privacy, not to mention illegal. I understand the customer relations officer's need to defend the company's acts against complaints, and by his own admission all these is condoned and even part of SMRT's policy: They found nothing wrong with staff treating customers with contempt. But it is time for SMRT to start reflecting on its organisational attitude and policies. The misdeed may be small, even trivial. But such a nonchalant attitude reveals a great deal about a soulless organisation and serves only to alienate its customers. (Mr) Raymond Chong   EDITORS' NOTE: Mr Raymond Chong had lodged a complaint on the day of the incident to SMRT which took more than one week to reply to him. The corporate communications officer insisted that they had done nothing wrong and again accused him of breaking the law. Mr Chong emailed them again and criticized their insincerity in taking the matter seriously and this time another corporate communications officer replied with a softer and less condescending tone. She offered her apologies to Mr Chong but still failed to answer his questions. Mr Chong has also sent his letter above to The Straits Times which was published in the Straits Times Forum on 20 January 2010 in a watered-down version. Singaporeans need not depend on the mainstream media to have their voices heard in public now. Our readership is now on par with TODAY Online and we promise we will publish all your letters within a week completely UNEDITED in its original version unlike the Straits Times.   Train operator's split personality RECENTLY, I was stopped by an SMRT station manager and had my identity card (IC) number noted for photographing a faulty display panel with my cellphone camera. The SMRT staff quoted a Prevention of Terrorism Act as the reason for my 'booking'. SMRT's reply to my complaint was that photography and filming are not allowed in trains and stations. It cited company policy, yet this is not displayed prominently in stations and trains. In fact, SMRT has held photography competitions in its stations, where winning entries are displayed prominently. The other dissonant point was the difference between the public face the SMRT tries to project of its staff - friendly and helpful - and the absence of this basic attitude in the station manager's tone, which bordered on rudeness. Raymond Chong [Source: Straits Times Forum, 20 January 2010]  Read More →

Written by Our Correspondent The President of Singapore's leading feminist organization AWARE has lambasting OverEasy bar for "profiting" using the breasts of women. OverEasy bar launched a promotion last weekend, giving out free drinks to women based on their cup size. "A" cup women will receive one drink followed by two for "B" cuppers and three for "C" cuppers. The "D" cuppers reportedly received a bottle of wine worth $168. In a letter to the Straits Times Forum yesterday, Ms Lam criticized the women who participated in the event: "Even if a woman is willing to pay the personal price of loss of dignity, there is still a cost suffered by other women.......The women who participated have contributed to the objectification of women, to reducing a woman's value to her breast size, and have helped reinforce the belief among men that this is not only acceptable, but welcome. Staging this event in itself is extremely distasteful." Ms Lam expressed her disappointment that some women viewed their participation as an "act of empowerment" and urged them to make individual choices in a "social context" to be "esteemed as individuals above and beyond their value as sex objects." "This event perpetuates the notion of women as sex objects and makes it that much more difficult for each woman who wants to be valued for her character and contribution, rather than how she stacks up to a distorted image of the ideal body. The personal choice (of the participants) and the private choice (of the corporation) has had a detrimental social impact," she added. The event reportedly attracted a good turnout from women with "quite a number" of D-cuppers including some tourists from Canada and Australia. The news made the headlines in the Chinese tabloids and even the digital edition of The Straits Times which has been publishing more and more sleazy news like this lately to boost its flagging readership. Ms Lam was nominated as President of AWARE during the divisive EGM in May last year which saw the previous committee being booted out unceremoniously by its members. It is not known if any female members of AWARE had "graced" the event by OverEasy Bar which will surely infuriate Ms Lam. Perhaps AWARE may like to consider launching a public awareness campaign to educate Singapore women to look at their breasts as "sacred" instead of sex objects.  Read More →