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)