Human rights has become a ‘religion’ that breeds devotees who border on the fanatic, Professor Walter Woon said on Thursday.

It would be ‘hypocrisy’ for such people to decide what is acceptable for the rest of society, he said.

-- The Straits Times. 31 May 2008, A-G cautions against human rights becoming a ‘religion’ with fanatics

An exchange of letters followed in the press. Replying to letters from the human rights group Maruah and the women's rights group AWARE, Woon wrote:

In my address at the launch of the Law Society’s Public and International Law Committee, I said that for some people human rights has become a religion. This religion, like so many others, has its fanatics who display all the hypocrisy and zealotry of religious bigots.

They believe that there is only one permissible view of human rights ­ theirs. They assume that when they decide what human rights are, that decision is for the rest of humanity.

I gave the example of those who think that the right to free expression means that one can insult the Prophet of a great religion with impunity. I asked rhetorically, can we accept this in our society?

-- letter by Walter Woon published in both the Straits Times and Today newspaper, 9 June 2008.

What happened next? The Straits Times did an interview with Walter Woon, effectively giving him more space to explain himself.... without doing interviews with Maruah, Aware or other critics. By so doing, the newspaper gave the last word on the issue to the government's side.

You may shrug and say: Well that's how it is in Singapore. Yes, but you probably didn't realise this bias until I pointed it out. We have grown so accustomed to the unlevel playing field that we seldom even notice how subtly unfair things are.

Despite the advantage accorded him, Woon made a hash of the interview. His choice of words, not helped by the Straits Times' blatant attempt to add a halo, revealed how his original speech in May had been a kneejerk, partisan response to circumstances, not a considered discussion of what human rights mean.

It might not have been obvious then but, as subsequent events revealed, that speech was made at a time when the Attorney-General's Chambers (AGC) were preparing to charge Gopalan Nair, an opposition supporter, with insulting a judge over her conduct of a trial involving Chee Soon Juan and others of the Singapore Democratic Party. Also, there was in the background the draft of a report by the International Bar Association about human rights standards in Singapore, which the government had seen, but had not yet been posted publicly.

In hindsight, you can see Woon lashing out at these critics.

In the newspaper interview, he tried to defend his earlier statements, but the more he tried, the more it seemed to me he was digging a bigger hole for himself. It sounded like an attempt to rationalise away an imprudent speech.

* * * * *

 
Woon had been a Nominated Member of Parliament in the 1990s, which was when he first made a mark for himself. In 1994, he tabled a private member's bill in Parliament -– a first for Singapore -– that eventually became the Maintenance of Parents Act. In doing so, people formed the impression that he was an independent-minded guy not afraid to push for causes he believed in. Yet, it may be worthwhile noting that the cause he became known for was not one of liberalism and rights but of responsibilities, enshrining a family obligation into law.

Then for a long while, he served as Singapore's ambassador to Germany and other European countries, which poses a question: To what extent has he been co-opted by the People's Action Party (PAP) government?

In a state like Singapore, where a party has been continuously in power for 50 years (the PAP came to power in 1959) the lines between party, government and state are blurred. It becomes extremely difficult to serve the state -– as an ambassador or A-G should -- without defending the government or subscribing to the tenets of the party.

One may wish to make the distinction, but in practice, it is hardly realistic to expect an appointment in the first place without being seen as a "safe" pair of hands by the party/government bigwigs, who, not fearing any likelihood of losing office, can afford to put partisan interests ahead of state interests in making their choices. By the same token, since an appointee cannot expect to outlast the government in power, it becomes very hard to sustain and act on one's personal principles while in office, however idealistic one might have been at the beginning.

* * * * *

 
Probably aware of such doubts as to whether Woon has "sold out", the Straits Times opened its interview by editorialising:

Nine years in the diplomatic corps and two in the Legal Service have done little to dilute the pungency of Professor Walter Woon's speech. The former law academic-turned-Attorney-General still speaks his mind, including on controversial topics at the heart of ongoing tussles between law enforcers and activists from the ranks of civil society and political opposition.

-- Straits Times, 4 July 2008, 'Human rights'
label often abused

Why was there a need to paint the halo of independence? Why, after 50 years of PAP rule, is adherence to the PAP's mind still considered disgraceful, that one needs to distance oneself from it? What is it about the PAP's tenets that despite 50 years of economic success, still stinks?

On the controversial remark that some people have become fanatics over human rights, Woon tried to explain that his beef was with foreigners:

Prof Woon, 52, who lived in Europe from 1997 to 2006 while serving as Singapore's Ambassador to Germany and Belgium, makes it clear his issue is with foreigners who harbour the 'delusion that they define human rights for the rest of humanity'.

That is why he welcomes efforts such as the Law Society's to encourage Singaporeans to discuss where they believe the line between human rights and obligations should be drawn.

'If we don't discuss ourselves where our society is going, then we abdicate the debate to all these fellows and the types in Singapore who follow that line,' he says.

One local development that disturbs him is how the term 'human rights' is abused by many people with grievances against the Government.

-- ibid

What a clumsy attempt it was! The last two lines gave it away; he let show that, really, it was the "types in Singapore" who were on his mind. The final sentence also revealed how dismissive he was of any criticism of the government where rights were concerned. Yet, in an upcoming article where I will be discussing the 18 recommendations from the International Bar Association, you will see that these criticisms are not without basis. The recommendations are relatively mild, representing minimum standards of political governance.

Touching on civil disobedience,

In his view, those who claim to fight for greater political and civil liberties by deliberately breaking the law are doing others who want more elbow room a disservice.

People who want to push for change need to learn 'how to work the system', and accept that others will have different views.

'I have been overruled on many things and I've been criticised on many things. Sometimes it takes a while before others will accept what you say.'

-- ibid

Once again, it reveals that despite his protests about referring to foreigners, his "fanatics" remark was really aimed at Chee Soon Juan and supporters. Who comes to mind when one speaks of "breaking the law" in the fight for liberties?

As for working within the system, there are limits. If you generally agree with the government's goals, but disagree with methods, there are indeed ways of doing so. But if your disagreement is fundamental, or if the top PAP leaders have decided that you must be destroyed as an opponent, there is really no room for such engagement. To confuse scenario A with scenario B is not helpful to understanding Singapore.

Coming back to human rights,

Straits Times: What about established rights such as freedom of expression?

Woon: You have a right to freedom of expression. It's in the Constitution. But can we also accept that freedom of expression doesn't mean unlimited freedom? There has to be a line drawn somewhere. I think most civilised societies accept that.

In many European countries, you cannot question the Holocaust. And any suggestion of anti-Semitism is immediately whacked, even with jail sentences. But you can use extremely vulgar terms to describe Muslims, which is what Theo van Gogh, a Dutch film-maker, did. That, apparently, was freedom of expression. You can insult the Prophet Muhammad. That's freedom of expression. Now, they may accept that within their society. Can we? Should we? That's the question. Many of these fanatics think: 'We've decided that this is human rights, therefore when Singapore does something, we're entitled to criticise them.' I say rubbish. You want to do it in your society, do it in your society. Don't come and tell us you draw the line for the rest of the world.

-- ibid

The first paragraph is uncontroversial, but in the second, he chose two rhetorical devices: The first was to highlight the one area where Europe (not America) is inconsistent in its application. The second was to focus on the most vexing question of the limits of speech -– over religion. Indeed, that is an area worthy of debate, though it is not as open-and-shut a case as Woon makes it seem, for the freedom to offend is arguably also part of the freedom of speech, More insidiously, you also see a tendency to put blame on the speaker, not the guy throwing the molotov cocktails.

But to turn the debate this way is diversionary, for in Singapore the main issue is not the freedom of religious speech, but the freedom of political speech. Why are political films banned? Why are newspapers so tightly controlled? Why the sweeping rules over political speech on the internet?

Why are permits for public marches never allowed however peaceful they may be? Why are some people prosecuted so vigorously over speaking in public? Why are plays and art exhibitions banned?

Woon failed to address these, preferring instead to merely label others as "fanatics" and then trying to save himself by saying he was mainly referring to foreigners. This is quite typical of what those who are obliged to serve the state find themselves reduced to -– having to fend off the PAP's critics without seeming partisan. It's a highly compromised position, which judges and ambassadors have been seen in. And now the A-G too.

© Yawning Bread