« Protect the web, says Sir Tim | HomePage | Singapore calls lawyers' allegations over rights unfounded »
10/07/2008
Singapore calls lawyers' allegations over rights unfounded
Listen to this article
You wouldn't know 'substance' if it bit you on the ass..
As there is 'substance' in the IBA report it confirms something. Something that must not be looked at. Something that is to be denied at all costs. Something that you maintain. Something that is unpalatable to many in the rank and file of the Ministry of Law. The truth...
They had the oppurtunity to see and assess for themselves the state of the rule of law in Singapore and whether it is fair for the draft report to portray Singapore as an oppressive state where there is little regard for human rights and the rule of law. Singapore Ministry of Law [pdf]
THEY CAME THEY SAW.
SINGAPORE (AFP) — Allegations that Singapore fails to meet international standards for political and human rights are without substance, the city-state's law ministry said Thursday.
It was reacting to a report by the International Bar Association's Human Rights Institute [pdf], which said it had identified a number of areas in which Singapore fell far short of international norms.
"The human rights allegations in the report... have no substance," the Singapore ministry said in a statement.
[A few weeks ago the argument in court was slightly different ... “Your honour, the International Bar Association decided to honour Singapore and hold its annual conference in this city and you [Dr Chee] were given an opportunity to present your case, with your complaint that Singapore lack the rule of law. There were some 3000 lawyers there.
I think they left Singapore with a very different impression from what you have projected because we have a letter from the President of the International Bar Association to the organisers, namely the Law Society of Singapore, how successful the meeting was and how impressed they were by the standards they found to obtain in the judiciary - "…” Minister Mentor.]
It accused the rights institute of closing ranks "with other Western human rights NGOs to prescribe for Singapore and all new countries, especially China, Western norms of liberal democracy as the only way to bring stability and prosperity."
[It (IBA) has a membership of 30,000 individual lawyers and more than 195 bar associations and law societies spanning all continents. It has considerable expertise in providing assistance to the global legal community. IBA]
The law ministry referred to a 15-page brief it submitted to the bar association [pdf] but which it said had not been taken into account.
"In Singapore, our growth and prosperity over the years have, through judicious planning, careful management and sound investments, translated into progress in Singaporeans' well-being in terms of life expectancy, adult literacy rate, prevalence of criminality, and access to clean water, sanitation, and health services," the Singapore brief said.
The bar association, calling human rights universal and indivisible, issued its 72-page report on Tuesday, several months after the IBA held its annual convention in Singapore. The association represents 30,000 lawyers globally.
09:25 Posted by soci | Permalink | Comments (4) | Trackbacks (0) | Email this | Tags: Singapore, IBA, Judiciary
Trackbacks
The URL to Trackback this post is: http://singabloodypore.rsfblog.org/trackback/1590744
Comments
singapore probably spent a lot of money and effort to get IBA to hold its conference here, and usually well treated visitors would go home with good feelings and at least say some polite things about the host; the negative report therefore must be a very disappointing outcome, especially as the authors chose to virtually ignore the 15 page response to the draft report when producing the final version
whereas the law ministry brief justifies the individual items (defamation suits, barring bankrupts from standing for parliament, etc), the IBA report authors saw the final result (CSJ and JBJ excluded from elections). It was a dialog on two different tracks.
I assume the IBA authors also know about the dafamation cases involving foreign news organizations and have taken these into consideration in forming their impressions of singapore.
Posted by: yuen | 10/07/2008
The IBA report refers to numerous defamation cases including the FEER case. It also refers to the 15-page briefing throughout the report. So it didn't 'virtually ignore'.
The statement above that..
"The law ministry referred to a 15-page brief it submitted to the bar association but which it said had not been taken into account." Is simply ignoring the further arguments presented in the IBA report.
The '15-page brief' is cited as a Letter from Mark Jayaratnam, Deputy Director, Legal Policy Division for Permanent Secretary, Ministry of Law, Singapore Government to the IBA (9 April 2008).
On numerous occasions the IBA report takes direct quotes from and cites sections of the 15 page article that the Law Ministry submitted to the IBA.
It makes direct references to the letter submitted by Mark Jayaratnam.
One very noticeable example of this is the following quotation that is copied and pasted then rebutted in the IBA report. See page 10 of Mark Jayaratnams letter (the 15 page brief) and page 44 of the IBA report.
‘What is important to Singapore and Singaporeans, in our development as a cosmopolitan global city, are fundamentals such as good governance, a safe environment, our performance as a cohesive and resilient society, and our ability to respond effectively to challenges and connect with the world as part of a globalised economy. Our media have been sensitive to Singapore’s national and community interests, enabling contribution to
nation-building, thereby strengthening the resolve and resilience of Singaporeans. There is no reason why Singapore should unthinkingly adopt a model favoured by some other countries which have their own socio-political circumstances.’134
By 'taken into account' we can only assume they (ML) mean say as we say exactly and unquestioningly.
So by refering to in detail and then rebutting in detail, position by position, the 15-page brief the IBA are 'not taking it into account'. The only way the IBA could have 'taken into account' the 15-page brief from the Ministry of Law that might satisfy the ML would be to simply paraphrase it.
Posted by: soci | 10/07/2008
the purpose of the 15 page brief was to persuade the IBA authors to change their views; this did not occur, because the two sides were not looking at the same things
one could say "we used A, B, C to achieve D; there is nothing wrong with each of A, B, C; so there is nothing wrong with D"; this of course assumes that D is a worthwhile objective to start with
Posted by: yuen | 10/07/2008
So an oppressive state is something we should all be aiming for. Sometimes I think the UK government still envies Singapore's 'social engineering' style after all Thatcher once proclaimed her love for everything Singaporean.
That aside, they came they saw and they assessed.
They didn't like what they saw. The problem for the Ministry of Law is that their distinguished guests had the audacity to tell them that they need to get their house in order. Rude - yes. fearless - yes, bold - yes, imprudent - yes.
Incorrect? untruthful? Sometimes criticism helps you improve, you have to swallow your pride first though.
Posted by: soci | 11/07/2008