More than meets the eyes

3 newspapers, the same headline, 3 different versions.

This was what sgwatchDOG recently discovered. A recent piece of news from Agence France-Presse (AFP) mentioned that the proposed ASEAN human rights body would use peer pressure, instead of sanctions. Disappointing, but expected at this stage of things.

But what made sgwatchDOG more worried was the 3 versions of this report found online. A Dow Jones version had this at the end of the article.

ASEAN has a long-standing policy of noninterference. Civic groups have criticized the bloc for not taking a tougher stand on rights violations among its members, particularly Myanmar.

Strongly worded. And also strangely missing from other versions. Perhaps an added comment from Dow Jones.

TODAY was even more "exciting", providing 2 versions. The PDF version (the version that looks like the printed paper) had this portion

Singapore, Myanmar, Cambodia, Laos and Vietnam are pressing to water down the terms of reference to ensure the human rights body is largely an advisory panel. Brunei has not stated its position, the official said.

but this portion below was missing

Under the charter, a human rights body would be established in a region that includes countries with poor human rights records, such as military-run Myanmar, which is subject to international sanctions.

The text version of the same article on TODAY's website was even more "watered down" (to borrow the phrase). The paragraph on "pressing to water down" (see quoted paragraph above) that appeared in the PDF version suddenly disappeared...

By now, you must be confused. Which is the original version? Your guess is as good as sgwatchDOG's, but the version found here could be close to the original...

Lessons learned? When you see a reprint of a news agency article (e.g. AP, AFP, Reuters, etc), don't assume that it is a full reprint. There's more than meets the eye.

p.s. Google the headline [ASEAN human rights body to rely on ‘peer pressure’] to see the different versions (there are a few more versions that sgwatchDOG didn't mention) in cyberspace.

Not all in West call for liberal ideals out of jealousy

ST Forum
A good forum letter about the ongoing debate on human rights. See the discussion board thread for a continuation of the exchange of views.

29th July 2008
Not all in West call for liberal ideals out of jealousy

AS A politics and international relations undergraduate attending university in Britain, I have followed the recent furore over perceived 'Singapore-bashing' comments in the local press with great interest. I would like to think my views do not stem from just one side of the divide. I grew up in Singapore, and attended local schools. These days, I attend lectures by 'Western liberals', and discuss politics with young people of similar leaning. This, thus far, has been my exposure to the ideals of human rights and free speech, among other principles which have received fairly short shrift by sections of the Singapore public and academia.

At my university, there is a campaign or protest on the steps of the Student Union at any one time - against the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, against xenophobia in Britain, against the atrocities in Darfur... These campaigns are not public nuisances, and they are never regarded as such. To my mind, they are the product of passion and intellectual discussion, and their utility lies in the debate they spark, on issues which are often controversial.

Note that these campaigns - often centred on, and calling for human rights, or at least the broader concept of human security - are not propagated by the government. More often than not, these students target government policies, calling for change, and encouraging civil society, in turn, to urge action in Parliament. This is the value of constructive dissent, in itself possible because of freedom of speech - within limits - and the right to protest.

My point is this: Not all in the West call for liberal ideals because they are 'jealous'. Singaporeans writing in and to the local press have asserted that the West must understand that Singapore's principles are fundamentally different, that here the focus is on pragmatism, on meeting material needs, and on stability. I feel it is also important to recognise that the Western intellectual tradition is perhaps more philosophically oriented, and certainly more vocal.

I find most disturbing the accusations that all criticism aimed at the Government must be from ignorant, jealous outsiders. Perhaps this stems from the perception that all radical dissenters in the local political landscape are lunatics. To begin, I am currently working with local women's non-governmental organisation AWARE, and it offers constructive criticism of government policies relating to sex and gender in its 2007 Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) Shadow Report. Former and current AWARE presidents have risen to the fore to argue for local and migrant women's rights, if not for the recognition of universal human rights. Surely they are not ignorant or jealous - but attempting to spark debate, and eventually reform?

The worst possible approach Singapore could take at the moment is to go on the defensive and adopt the same moral high-handedness it believes the West is levelling at it. Of course the West is no vanguard of human civilisation; it is ridiculous to assume academics in the West are oblivious to that fact. None of my professors will hold, I am sure, that the United States or Britain presents a 'perfect' democracy. But nor does Singapore. It is time to stop pointing fingers back across the water, and start exchanging ideas on what we can learn from each other.

Dell Marie Butler (Ms)

Proposed amendments to the Consumer Protection (Fair Trading) Act

As mentioned earlier, the 1st reading of the amendments to the Consumer Protection (Fair Trading) Act a.k.a. CPFTA proceeded on 21st July 2008. sgwatchDOG notes that the PDF is up on the Parliament "Bills Introduced" portion of its website.

sgwatchDOG hasn't finished sieving through the entire Bill, but notes that further (major) changes have been made compared to the draft shown during public consultation. One of the examples below.

Expansion of jurisdiction of Small Claims Tribunals (SCT)
sgwatchDOG presumes that the powers that be have discovered that part of the problem faced by consumers, was not the CPFTA, but the SCT Act. Rightly so.

For example, timeshare contracts finally come under SCT's jurisdiction. Previously, they were explicitly excluded.

Also, SCT previously regarded all disputes the same way, with no distinction between business-to-business disputes, and consumer-to-business disputes. This has now been changed in the bill tabled. In a way, this will mean that SCT has to take the "vulnerability" of a typical consumer into consideration, and protect them more. Malaysia has done it by having 2 separate tribunals, a SCT, and a Consumer Claims Tribunals.

Another amendment also enables disputes with money-changers to come under SCT jurisdiction.

p.s. the easy way to analyse an amendment bill is to look at the last few pages, i.e. the so-called "Explanatory Statement" to help guide the reader.

Has rule by law killed the rule of law in Malaysia?

NUS: Faculty of Law - Seminar
sgwatchDOG just attended this seminar by Dr Ratna Rueban Balasubramaniam. sgwatchDOG can't really yet comment on the paper presented (need to finish reading it first), but initial thoughts lay with the proposition that law should be moral. sgwatchDOG sensed this proposition too while attending the recent human rights law lectures by Prof Thio Li-Ann.

ASEAN must move on Human Rights

Bangkok Post | Sunday Perspective |
A commentary piece on the proposed ASEAN human rights body.

The effects of the fuel and food crisis in Cambodia

Alex Renton reports | Environment | The Observer
A window into the situation in rural Cambodia. sgwatchDOG suspects that other rural communities in ASEAN are facing the same problems. There are no obvious (or easy) solutions to the issues at hand.

The universality of human rights

The ongoing debate on human rights has seen quite a few comments framing the concept of human rights as a Western idea, and that it has to be modified for the Singapore context.

This, of course, is not a new phenomenon. But because it is a fallacy, it should be addressed everytime it pops up.

sgwatchDOG is not exactly a historian, and so has to rely on the relatively recent (about 60 years old) Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), and not some ancient civilisation that embraced human rights.

This UN document was not drafted solely by westerners. The photo above shows some of the people involved in the drafting committee. In any case, the draft still had to be approved by the countries in the UN. See here for more photos.

The list below show the people (and countries) involved with the drafting and discussion of the UDHR. Info from here.

John Peters Humphrey (from Canada) was then the Director of the UN Division on Human Rights, and was responsible for the research of past statements and wrote the initial draft.

Members of the full 18-member United Nations Human Rights Commission, 1946-1948*

Australia - Colonel William Roy Hodgson
Belgium - Fernand Dehousse
Byelorussia - Afanasi Stepanenko
Chile - Hernán Santa Cruz
China - Chang Peng-chun (usually referred to as P.C. Chang)
Egypt - Omar Loufti
France - René Cassin
India - Hansa Mehta
Iran - A.G. Pourevaly
Lebanon - Charles Malik
Panama - M. Amado
Philippines - General Carlos Romulo, Benigno Aquino
Ukraine - Michael Klekovkin
USSR - Valentin Tepliakov, Vladimir Koretsky, Alexander Bogomolov, Alexei P. Pavlov
UK - Charles Dukes (Lord Dukeston), Geoffrey Wilson
United States - Eleanor Roosevelt
Uruguay - J.J.C. Victorica
Yugoslavia - Vladislav Ribnikar

*Note: Representatives changed over this two-year period and delegates for each country are listed in the order in which they served. Also, other delegates sometimes sat in for the main delegate and made contributions to the drafting process.

So one can clearly see that the drafting and subsequent debate on the draft document was not limited to westerners only.

Different cultures got their say in how the document should look like. And after distilling to the basics, the UDHR was born.

What if we don't use history to explain that human rights is not just a western idea? No problem.

Let's take consumer rights for example. A consumer (no matter western or not) will feel that his or her consumer rights are violated if they get cheated into buying a defective product. But consumer rights are human rights.

There is often a misconception that human rights is something airy-fairy, something foreign. Tell that to the heartlander auntie who just got fleeced of her hard-earned money buying a useless product. Not so western a concept after all now right?

Even if you use the example of freedom of expression, you can show that human rights is not merely a western, or alien idea. Think of any issue which you are an affected party. E.g. An increase of concession card stamp charges affects you as a student that uses it. Wouldn't you want the right for your views to be heard? Isn't that also the concept of freedom of expression?

Order Paper for next Parliament sitting published

Order Paper
The agenda (called the "Order Paper") for the next session (a.k.a. sitting) of Parliament has been released. Some interesting stuff (to sgwatchdog anyway) to note.

Bill to amend Consumer Protection (Fair Trading) Act finally appears
The long awaited amendments are finally been tabled for the 1st reading. The draft Bill which was circulated for public consultation showed quite a few major changes to the original Act, which first took effect on 1st March 2004. It will be interesting to watch if there are changes made to the Bill after the public consultation.

Motion for discussion on "Security Lapses and Public Confidence"
Dr Teo Ho Pin has proposed a motion to discuss the above issue. Cue the relevant Minister to step up and possibly say the usual "yes, we will tighten our ship, but the public have a role to play too" speech again...

By the way, see here for an explanation on how a typical Parliament sitting proceeds.

How can aid agencies tackle corruption?

Reuters AlertNet
Maybe Ren Ci can learn something from this article... The article stems from a Transparency International report. Something simple below to remember from the article.

Transparency International's definition of corruption is simple - it's "the abuse of entrusted power for private gain"

Small Claims Tribunals still unable to protect the public's interest

小额赔偿法庭仍照顾不了公众利益
This Zaobao forum letter highlights the current loopholes existing in the legal system. Members of public who are cheated by companies often seek compensation via the Small Claims Tribunals (SCT). However, these cases often result in so-called "paper judgements", where the case is won, but no compensation is obtained, as the company has closed down. The other scenario presented, is the situation where a dispute is not allowed to be heard at SCT as the amount being claimed is more than the prescribed limit (normally S$10,000, up to S$20,000 with mutual consent). This means that the dispute will have to go through normal Court proceedings, which will then involve lawyers, and high legal fees. Consequently, disputes are dropped as people have insufficient money to fight a law suit.

UPDATE: 19th July 2008 - A quick check via the Zaobao forum pages (here and here) seems to show that SCT has yet to respond...

Unjust and unnecessary

The Star, Malaysia

A commentary piece on the human rights situation of Muslim women in Malaysia.

We increasingly trade freedom for wealth or security

Comment is free | guardian.co.uk

The model for this is Singapore, where repression is highly selective. It is confined to those who take a conscious decision openly to challenge the authorities. If you do not, you enjoy freedom to travel, to live more or less as you wish, and – perhaps most important – to make money.

Wonder if the government will respond to the above article, like it did for this WSJ article.

[Update: 7th July 2008] TODAY has reproduced the above commentary piece, in my opinion, as if to "challenge" the Singapore government to respond to it. Kudos to them.

[Update: 10th July 2008] The Prime Minister's Office has responded to the article.