The ability of this small nation to tackle head-on one of the most pressing issues of our time is a reminder of the spirit of resilience that embeds every facet of policymaking there, and which enables the conditions to anticipate and envision bold actions that strive to guarantee future prosperity and wellbeing for its citizenry.

From the UNDP Human Development Index to the Global Food Security and Safe Cities indexes of the Economist Intelligence Unit, to the 2020 Rule of Law Index of the World Justice Project and many other global rankings, Singapore is always among the best performers, testifying to how its unique incubator and accelerator of civil service talents and potentials is doing wonders.

I am wondering now if, by 2030, which marks the end of this decade of action as outlined in Agenda 2030 for Sustainable Development, the city-state will also top other rankings, the ones that the power elite shrug off but are inevitably tainting this proud nation’s image.

Look, for example, at the recently released World Press Freedom Index, in which Singapore ranks among the bottom 20 countries. How could the political leadership be “OK” with being among the most nefarious violators of press freedom?

You can argue that the most serious and authoritative human rights organizations, like Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International or the International Commission of Jurists, continue to be biased against you, but when the US State Department’s Country Reports on Human Rights Practices or the European Union’s Annual Reports on Human Rights and Democracy also depict the abysmal human rights situation in Singapore, it is hard to find more excuses.

Ultimately, we are talking about human rights, defined as “universal” because there is an unequivocal understanding of their legitimacy as politically neutral global instruments to advance humanity.

While we cannot deny Singapore’s achievements in the sphere of socioeconomic rights, even though the island state remains one of the most unequal places on earth, doesn’t the Singaporean leadership finding itself guilty of dereliction of duty in the matter of human rights?

The government always excuses itself by citing the “special and unique circumstances” that characterize its fragile nation-building process, as well as the consistent focus on racial harmony that makes the country uniquely diverse but also fragile.

It is understandable on many extents that the city-state feels vulnerable and alone on many fronts, but its political leadership cannot continue playing its “special context” card to justify its own interpretation of the country’s obligation to international human rights.

As difficult as I find it to express this, let’s set aside the immoral issue of how the country still uses the death penalty despite the growing evidence worldwide that capital punishment is not an effective deterrent; or let’s pretend to ignore the much criticized Administration of Justice (Protection) Act with its powers of contempt of court, or the powerful and equally controversial Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Act (POFMA).

Instead, let’s talk about torture.

Does the government of Singapore still believe that committing to the abolishment of torture and other forms of inhuman treatment will result in a lethal breach of the inexpugnable “fortress” it has erected to protect the nation from disorder, chaos and all manner of adversities?

In a culture where corporal punishment has always played a role in the public psyche, what will it take to start a national conversation on the real and practical advantages of not signing the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment?

If this topic is too sensitive and difficult to debate because doing so would imperil “national security”, then what about the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights?

What are the long-term implications that signing this convention might endanger Singapore’s survival?

The Singaporean government always stresses its careful internal deliberation process in order to decide which international treaty better suits the country’s unique history and circumstances.

The Inter-ministerial Committee on Human Rights has been working precisely to assess the pros and cons of each international human rights treaty. How visible and well known is this committee? Are its deliberations easily accessible for people to form their own opinions about human rights?

It’s high time for the Minister for Home Affairs and Minister for Law, K. Shanmugam, who has strongly defended legislation like POFMA, to come forward and have an honest debate about human rights. Perhaps by listening before making his case to justify the existing policies, he might be persuaded of the need for an updated strategy to the “Singaporean approach” to human rights.

This week, Singapore is undertaking its third cycle of the universal periodic review at the United Nations Human Rights Council. In its national report, the government wrote: “the rule of law is an essential precondition and bedrock for promoting and protecting human rights”.

But what does “rule of law” mean?

If the rule of law is the barometer that guides policymaking toward a just, fair and, most importantly, universal human rights, what are the Singaporean values and principles that underpin this rule of law?

What distinguishes Singapore’s way from the most authoritarian nations that also founded their governance on the concept of rule of law, but at the same time, are the worst human rights abusers?

I believe it is in the best interest of the Singaporean government to work with all the opposition parties, not only the official one sitting in parliament, to frame a national debate on human rights.

I imagine a situation in which all “brave” politicians will be given a chance to talk.

Human rights organizations like Function 8, MARUAH, Singapore Anti-Death Penalty Campaign, People Like US and THINK Centre, to mention few, together with activist journalists like Kirsten Han of We Citizens, the editorial staff of engaged news outlets like The Online Citizen and New Naratif , and human rights lawyers like M. Ravi and Eugene Thuraisingam as well as activist Jolovan Wham should be allowed to be important contributors in such a debate.

Perhaps it is also high time to review the terms of reference of the Emerging Stronger Task Force, which aims to envision a better post-pandemic future for Singapore.

I bet you know what should be included.

 ***

The writer focuses on social inclusion, youth development, regional integration and the SDGs in the Southeast Asian context.

Popular

Is Indonesia really ready to embrace dual citizenship?

Tens of thousands seek better lives in Jakarta. But is the city losing its draw?

Elon Musk's Starlink granted licences to operate in Indonesia