In Memory of 1987: video

Here is the video of my speech on Saturday:

In Memory of 1987

On Saturday 2 June 2012, MARUAH and Function 8 organized an event called "That We May Dream Again" to commemorate the 25th anniversary of Operation Spectrum. I spoke at this event as Vice-President of MARUAH.

In Memory of 1987

Ladies and gentlemen, friends and colleagues, thank you for coming here today. My name is Siew Kum Hong. I speak today in my capacity of Vice-President of MARUAH. And I am very honoured to speak here today.

The U.S. President Franklin D. Roosevelt once said: “The only thing we have to fear is fear itself.” Looking at all of you here today, I am heartened to know that so many Singaporeans are no longer afraid of the Internal Security Act, or of the 1987 detentions.

And fear is the currency of the ISA. Its scope is notoriously broad, its wording infamously vague. I personally believe that this is deliberately so, to keep the population in line.

I once heard someone say, with full sincerity and conviction, that the ISA has not been used to detain political opponents in the last 10 to 15 years. I think that is probably true. But that time-frame seems carefully selected. Would that person have been equally sincere and convincing, if he had said 25 years instead?

The events of 1987 still haunt many Singaporeans, especially the older generations. It is different from younger Singaporeans, many of whom had not even been born in 1987.

In 1987, I was 12 years old.  I only have a hazy recollection of what was happening then. So most of what I know is based on what I have seen, read and heard as an adult. And of course, what I studied in law school and what I and my colleagues in MARUAH have researched since.

Like how some 1987 detainees challenged their detentions and won their case before the Court of Appeal, only to be immediately re-detained upon their release. Like how the Government quickly amended the ISA after that case, to limit future reviews of ISA detentions by the courts to purely procedural grounds, as you’ve just heard Jeannette say. Like how, even in the post-9/11 world where preventive detention laws have become more commonplace, the ISA continues to lack the checks and balances found in other countries’ laws.

What are some of these missing checks and balances? Firstly, even though the detainees are not brought before the courts, they are still subject to some sort of hearing that should comply with due process. In Singapore, we have a hearing before an advisory board. But this process is shrouded in secrecy and is completely non-transparent.

According to a lawyer who has appeared before advisory boards, the detainees and their lawyers do not get to see the evidence that is presented against them, and do not have the right to challenge witnesses against them. The decisions of the advisory board are not published and not even disclosed to detainees. So much for the right to a fair hearing.

Another critical area where the ISA falls short of international norms, is the maximum period of detention without trial that is allowed. For instance, Australia allows detention for only up to 48 hours. Even the UK, which has suffered actual terrorist attacks on its own soil, only permits detention for up to 28 days.

But in Singapore, preventive detention is potentially indefinite – for instance, Chia Thye Poh was first detained in 1966, released from ISD detention in 1989 after 23 years, but confined to Sentosa until 1992. The remaining restrictions were gradually lifted over the years, and he became a completely free man only in 1998 – 32 years after he was first detained.

Singapore went through the Universal Periodic Review process last year, which is a process where the United Nations reviews each country’s human rights record in turn. MARUAH submitted a paper focusing specifically on preventive detention and the death penalty. In that paper, we called for numerous reforms to the ISA to bring it in line with international norms and due process. The objective was to ensure that even if there is a legitimate security requirement for preventive detention, the detention is done in accordance with human rights norms and due process.

Since then, we have refined our position. MARUAH now thinks that the best way to achieve that objective, is to simply repeal the ISA and introduce new anti-terrorism laws consistent with human rights.

And that is exactly what Malaysia has done. Around six weeks ago, Malaysia repealed its own ISA, replacing it with an anti-terrorism law that limits preventive detention to 28 days. Yet, the Singapore Government continues to insist that it needs the ISA in its current form, and that a specific anti-terrorism law would not work or would not be enough or would take too long to implement. The Singapore Government continues to make these bald assertions without any real explanation or justification.

Well, I can only say in response: “Malaysia boleh!”

As many of you know, MARUAH is also calling for an independent Commission of Inquiry into the 1987 detentions. We are asking Singaporeans to sign a petition in support of this call.

Look around you today. Today, we see so many of the so-called Marxist conspirators standing together again, in public. This is Singaporeans’ chance to find out the truth for themselves.

Look at the ex-detainees. Go up to them. Talk to them. Look into their eyes. Listen to what they have to say, but more importantly listen to how they say it.

And then ask yourself: could these allegations really be true? Could they really have been subversives? Could they really have plotted to overthrow the Government? Could there really have been a Marxist conspiracy, or any conspiracy at all? And if the answers to those questions are “no”, then what could have been the justification for the detentions?

I have always doubted the supposed reasons for the 1987 detentions. And the first time I met and spoke to Vincent Cheng, I stopped having any doubts. I knew that I could not accept the story put forth by the Government. I became convinced that these were just good men and women who wanted a better Singapore. And for that, I salute them.

The 1987 detentions effectively killed civil society for an entire generation. Activists saw what happened to those who were willing to act on their conscience, and either gave up or went underground. Common people saw what happened to those who were willing to stand up and be counted, and so they shut up and sat down.

The Government talks about an active citizenry, it talks about getting Singaporeans involved. They talk about so many things, but they don’t talk about the great big elephant in the room.

In recent years, ex-detainees, whether from 1987 or earlier, have been publishing their own accounts about what happened to them. And these stories always contradict the official version stated by the Government. So far, the Government has completely failed to respond to the ex-detainees. As a first step towards coming to terms with the ISA, we need to understand, once and for all, what really happened in 1987. What evidence did the Government have of a conspiracy, that led them to order the detentions? Were the confessions by the detainees coerced? Were the detainees mistreated or tortured?

A famous American judge once said: “Sunlight is said to be the best disinfectant.” I ask the Government to shine a light on the events 25 years ago, and once and for all resolve all the doubts and questions that so many Singaporeans continue to have. Hold an independent Commission of Inquiry, and disinfect this gaping wound in our national psyche and soul. That is the only way that we can start to heal, and finally begin to come to terms with this dark stain on Singapore’s history, and have an informed national discourse on whether the ISA in its current form is necessary today.

Ladies and gentlemen. Thank you for listening. Thank you for coming today. Most of all, thank you for taking a stand against this law called the Internal Security Act, that has destroyed so many lives. May we see its abolition soon.

MARUAH’s View of the Police Investigations into SFD Members’ Sale of Death Penalty Book

29 January 2011

MARUAH’s View of the Police Investigations into SFD Members’ Sale of Death Penalty Book

MARUAH notes the statement by NGO Singaporeans for Democracy (SFD) and various media reports about the recent initiation of police investigations into three SFD members over their alleged sale of copies of the book Once A Jolly Hangman: Singapore Justice in the Dock at a film screening held on 14 November 2010 at the Substation. The SFD members are being investigated under Section 502 of the Penal Code, for the knowing “sale of printed or engraved substance containing defamatory matter”.

Although the police commenced investigations against Mr Alan Shadrake, the author of the book, for criminal defamation in 2010, no formal charges have been instituted. It is thus troubling how an investigation can begin into the sale of printed substance containing defamatory matter if the book in question has not been found by a court of law to be defamatory. Indeed, charges have not even been brought.

MARUAH therefore calls upon the Singapore Police Force to explain why it is initiating these criminal investigations on the three SFD members in relation to the sale of the book, when the author himself has not been charged.

Furthermore, if the Government’s position is that the sale of the book would be unlawful, then the proper course of action is to ban the book outright, which is a transparent action that is accountable and subject to judicial review of the courts where appropriate, and also conforms with the rule of law.

MARUAH President Braema Mathi says: “These criminal investigations by the police carry a much heavier ‘footprint’ than contempt proceedings. In this case it is bewildering why the police are investigating sellers of the book when there is no criminal defamation charge against the author or contempt proceedings against the three members.

”MARUAH is opposed to investigations without any reasonable basis, as these will only serve to significantly chill public debate on the death penalty and detract from Singaporeans’ constitutional right to free expression. ”

MARUAH Pillar Talk #2: Trial Observation

This is a MARUAH event for next Friday. Promises to be interesting.

whose Right is it anyway?: 31 October 2009

I received this in my inbox. Please note that the location is currently TBD -- while some other sites publicising this event list the location as SMU, I understand that the location will be changed. (Disclosure: I am a member of MARUAH, and will be moderating a session at this event. And the flyer is er courtesy of TOC!)

---

Dear Friends,

MARUAH, a local human rights advocacy group, is organising a youth human rights workshop together with UNYAS on the 31st October 2009, 9.00am to 5.30pm at [location TBD]. Entitled 'whose Right is it anyway?', some of you might be interested in attending this workshop.

This workshop aims to raise awareness about human rights and sensitise young people to the everyday human rights issues surrounding them, and would feature well-known speakers along with specially designed small-group sessions to engage in human rights.

What YOU can gain out of this:
- Learn more about the basics of human rights and what it can mean to you.
- Join in the interactive session and discussions on rights
- Taking the step forward to get involved in the rights discussion that is slowly gaining momentum in our country.
- Get the opportunity to meet other youths who come to the event with diverse point of views.

Registration is required for this event. You can find out more about the event here: http://maruah.org/2009/10/08/yhrw/ or see the attached eflyer for details.

Thanks!

Consultation Workshop (22 Aug): “Engaging the ASEAN Intergovernmental Commission on Human Rights (AICHR) – The People’s Views”: 22 August 2009

Disclosure: I am part of MARUAH.

When the ASEAN Charter was signed 2 years ago, it contained a clause requiring the establishment of an ASEAN human rights body. This clause was deliberately kept short and vague, so as to get all the ASEAN countries to agree to it. There was no definition to the body, nothing on its scope, powers, and composition.

Well, the Terms of Reference for the body (now called the ASEAN Intergovernmental Commission on Human Rights) have been agreed. The next phase in this process is for the governments to appoint their representatives to the Commission.

MARUAH (Singapore Working Group for an ASEAN Human Rights Mechanism) is therefore holding a public Consultation Workshop on the Commission and the selection of Singapore's representative to the Commission, on 22 August, 8.30am to 3.45pm. All are invited and it is free. Online registration can be completed here. Please attend if you have any interest in human rights.

Human rights in Singapore

I have been busier than usual lately, so this is a little outdated. Thanks to Shu for her work on this post.

On 29 May, the Attorney-General Professor Walter Woon made a speech at the launch of the Law Society's new Public and International Law Committee. This was extensively covered in the press, both in and outside Singapore (I'm told it even made the New York Times).

I thought TODAY's coverage was very good. I was indeed not present at the talk, but I was told by someone who was that the press reports did not misquote or place his comments out of context.

At a MARUAH meeting subsequent to that, the group decided to write to the press in response. I sent in two letters, one to TODAY and the other to The Straits Times (who had also covered the event). They were basically the same letters.

While the letter did not appear in the ST Forum, it did appear in TODAY's Voices section. The AG replied subsequently. Both my letter and his reply are reproduced below.

I know I may not have clearly articulated this in my letter, but human rights are, by definition, universal to all human beings. The United Nations, by making membership conditional upon acceptance of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, makes it clear that this recognition is a fundamental requirement for acceptance into the community of civilised nations.

There may be some rights that are contentious and disputed by different groups. But the issue there is whether these rights belong to the family of universal human rights, and not whether human rights are universal. And as I pointed out in my letter, the conception of human rights does change as society evolves. But the universality of human rights does not. The issue therefore should not lie in whether human rights are universal, but in the identification of what constitutes human rights.

I fundamentally agree that what human rights entails should not be defined by any single group -- and that includes officials, which to me is a greater and more realistic possibility in Singapore than the possibility of any non-governmental group imposing their views on the rest of Singapore.

It will not be possible to define human rights by unanimous consensus -- a broad agreement on whether something should be protected as a human rights should suffice. On this basis, it seems to me that there are many aspects of human rights that are non-controversial to most people including Singaporeans.

So instead of dwelling on the controversies at the margins, it seems to me more appropriate to focus on ensuring that Singapore is up to the mark on what is non-controversial to most. I do not think we are there on all such aspects, and so I do not agree with the constant focus on the controversial by officials. We can and should agree to disagree on those, and work on those that we do agree on, instead of constantly pointing to the disagreements and letting that slow or even stop us.

This is my letter.

TODAY, 6 June 2008: "Keep our door open to ideas"

I refer to the article “Politics, law and human rights ‘fanatics’: AG Walter Woon” (Today, 30 May 2008).

The Attorney-General, Prof Walter Woon, reportedly said that human rights has become a “religion among some people” for whom “it’s all hypocrisy and fanaticism”, that we should not confuse public law with politics, and that some people assume that their definition of human rights is the decision of the rest of humanity.

As a group that seeks to work on issues related to the establishment of the ASEAN human rights body from a Singapore perspective, MARUAH finds the A-G’s reported statements regrettable. Such a dismissal of sincerely-held views, even those expressed immoderately, is not helpful to engagement between a government and its citizens.

History tells us that ardent campaigners who were highly controversial in their day must be thanked for much of today’s social progress. While controversial causes are not necessarily right, our progress as a society depends on us keeping the door open to ideas, and not peremptorily dismissing ideas and their proponents with pejorative language.

MARUAH also believes that no single group of persons – including officials – has the right to conclusively define human rights for the rest of society. The definition of human rights evolves as society changes.

This evolution is stunted if dissentients are cast as troublemakers pursuing their own causes under the guise of human rights. Rather than criticizing dissentients, we should see them as making a positive contribution to our understanding and conceptualization of what human rights means to Singaporeans.

Finally, it is not helpful to view public law in complete isolation from politics. After all, politics must be conducted within the framework of the law, and political decisions must be lawful. Similarly, the law does not exist in a vacuum divorced from the politics of the day.

Siew Kum Hong
Member, Pro-Tem Committee
MARUAH

This is Professor Woon's letter.

TODAY, 9 June 2008: "No One Solution"

I REFER to the letter “Keep our door open to ideas” by Siew Kum Hong (June 6).

Mr Siew has misunderstood me. I surmise from his letter that he was not present at my talk.

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?

I pointed out that all our moral codes emphasise obligations rather than rights: The rule is “thou shalt not steal” and not “thou hast a right to property”.

I also said that the balance between rights and obligations is one for each society to decide.

Let me make my position clear lest I be misunderstood again. Human rights are a key component of good governance. But there is no consensus on where the line is to be drawn between the rights of an individual and the good of the society as a whole.

Human rights fanatics think that their opinion is the standard to which the rest of humanity must conform to and that they are entitled to issue reports criticising those who hold a different view. These are people who evidently believe that they and their values represent the apex of human moral development.

There is no one solution that will fit all societies.

I took pains to say that we must decide for ourselves where we draw the line between individual rights and the common good, because if we get it wrong, it will be our children who will pay the price. But that is a debate for us, not for those who know nothing of our history, culture or values and who do not have our interests at heart.

I have never dismissed the sincerely-held views of anyone who is genuinely interested in dialogue. A constructive debate about our obligations to our fellow citizens and the guests who live among us is healthy.

That is why I wholeheartedly supported the Law Society’s initiative in creating a Public and International Law Committee and having a series of lectures on the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

An ASEAN Human Rights body: A Milestone in the 60 years of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights?

Talk and forum on the ASEAN human rights mechanism

Maruah Singapore and the Asia-Europe Foundation are pleased to jointly present a lecture on:

An ASEAN Human Rights body:

A Milestone in the 60 years of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights?



Speaker:
Prof. Dr. Vitit Muntarbhorn
Co-Chair of the Civil Society Working Group for an ASEAN Human Rights Mechanism

Date and time:
Wed, 11 June 2008, 4:00 to 5:30 pm

Venue:
Asia-Europe Foundation 31 Heng Mui Keng Terrace (Off Pasir Panjang Road). Free admission.

You are cordially invited to a reception after the lecture

Abstract

This year is the 60th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, a key UN declaration regarded as the bedrock for setting human rights standards worldwide. The year also coincides auspiciously with the possible establishment of an ASEAN Human Rights “body”, a mechanism referred to in Article 14 in the recently adopted ASEAN Charter and currently in the process of ratification. How will that body be established substantively and to what extent will it respond to the aspirations of the Universal Declaration? Will it bridge the gap between rhetoric and reality? Furthermore, what impact will the establishment of an ASEAN Human Rights body have on Asia-Europe dialogue? These are some of the issues the speaker will address during his presentation.

This lecture takes place on the sidelines of the Working Group for an ASEAN Human Rights Mechanism meeting, on the 12 of June 2008 in Singapore.

Profile of Speaker

Vitit Muntarbhorn is a Professor of Law at Chulalongkorn University, Bangkok. He is currently UN Special Rapporteur on the situation of Human Rights in the DPR Korea. He is also Co-Chair of the Civil Society Working Group for an ASEAN Human Rights Mechanism.

Professor Muntharbhorn is an eminent expert in human rights with more than 1000 publications and combines the qualities of a scholar, an educator, a policy-making adviser and a grass-root human rights activist. He has served in various capacities for the United Nations system. In 1990-1994, he was Special Rapporteur on the sale of children, child prostitution and child pornography. He was awarded the UNESCO Prize for Human Rights Education in 2004.

About Maruah Singapore

Maruah Singapore is a group of individuals who have made a commitment to the process of facilitating for an ASEAN Human Rights Mechanism. We believe that such a process will be good for the region and for Singapore. We come from all backgrounds professionals, students, homemakers, academics, activists, lawyers, doctors, writers united in our desire to make a difference on the ground and at policy-level.

Maruah means “Dignity” in Malay, Singapore’s national language. We are keen to impress that Human Rights is all about maintaining, restoring and reclaiming one’s dignity at the individual, regional and international level.

For further information, please visit http://www.maruah.org/

About the Asia-Europe Foundation

The Asia-Europe Foundation (ASEF) advances mutual understanding and collaboration between the people of Asia and Europe through intellectual, cultural, and people-to-people exchanges. These exchanges include conferences, lecture tours, workshops, seminars and the use of web-based platforms. The major achievement of ASEF is the establishment of permanent bi-regional networks focussed on areas and issues that help to strengthen Asia-Europe relations.

Established in February 1997 by the partners of the Asia-Europe Meeting (ASEM)[1], ASEF reports to a board of governors representing the ASEM partners. ASEF is the only permanent physical institution of the ASEM process. Since 1997, the Foundation has initiated projects engaging 14,000 individuals from Asia and Europe. ASEF works in partnership with other public institutions and civil society actors to ensure its work is broad-based and balanced among the partner countries.

This particular lecture is organised under ASEF’s governance pillar. ASEF reinforces the role of civil society in good governance with Asia-Europe exchanges that benefit the peoples of both regions.

Our programmes:

- Informal ASEM Seminar on Human Rights - engenders groundbreaking government-civil society dialogue on various dimensions of human rights.

-Democratisation and Justice Series - platform to explore differences, similarities and challenges of democratisation processes, particularly in countries undergoing political transition in Asia and Europe.

For further information, please visit http://www.asef.org/

Public forum on 24 May 2008: Understanding the implications of inflation on your investments and the labour market

The Society of Financial Service Professionals (Singapore), MARUAH, TWC2 and T.I.A. Conferences are jointly organising a public forum on 24 May 2008. Some details are below, a detailed programme is available on the T.I.A. site. This is a walk-in seminar and prior registration is not required.

Understanding the implications of inflation on your investments and the labour market

Date and Time: 24 May 2008 (Saturday), 2pm
Venue: National Philanthropic Centre, 6 Eu Tong Sen Street, The Central

Topics

1. Investing in the Singapore market (Mr Lyndon Chew)

2. Inflation and its implications on the economy and your portfolio (Mr Leong Sze Hian)

3. Our policies on inflation and labour rights (Ms Braema Mathi)

Women and an ASEAN Human Rights Body: A commemoration of International Women’s Day

I have been tardy in updating this blog, mostly because I took some personal time after the Budget debates and after that I have been focusing on work. Over the next few days, I will post some updates on my speeches during the Budget debates, and also try to figure out how to add Vodpod to this blog.

In the meantime, MARUAH Singapore is organising a forum in partnership with AWARE, Unifem Singapore and the Society of Financial Service Professionals, to commemorate International Women's Day. Please do attend if you can.

Date: Saturday 29th March

Event description:

Singapore holds the chairmanship of Asean from July 2007-July 2008. During it’s tenure, Asean countries signed the Asean Charter. Article 14 of the Charter affirms Asean’s commitment to the ‘protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms’. To promote these aims, Article 14 calls for the setting up of an “Asean human rights body”. Singapore was the first country to ratify this treaty.

What is the current status of women’s rights in Asean and how can Article 14 make a tangible difference in advancing these rights? How much further does Asean have to go in the sphere of gender equality and human rights?

Come down and listen to the views of speakers both local and regional on these questions and more.

Please RSVP attendance to:

maruahforum@gmail.com

Time: 3-5pm (Registration begins at 2.30pm)

Venue: Function Hall, 5th Storey Podium, URA Building

OPQ 21 January 2008: Myanmar

I am involved with a group called MARUAH Singapore, that is basically a group of people in Singapore who seek to, as our mission statement says, "inform and facilitate, from a Singaporean perspective, the establishment of an ASEAN human rights body".

This stems from the section of the ASEAN Charter that provides for the establishment of an ASEAN human rights body. We are the Singapore focal point for a regional group called the Working Group for an ASEAN Human Rights Mechanism, which is recognised as an entity associated with ASEAN in the ASEAN Charter.

So I was glad when Ms Irene Ng filed her PQ on the recent ASEAN Summit. What happened there, when Myanmar basically stymied all efforts to discuss the situation there, thereby thoroughly embarrassing Singapore as host and ASEAN chair and causing the ongoing reconciliation efforts to grind to a halt, was not acceptable.

When the Minister mentioned the work on the creation of the human rights body, I wanted to find out the Government's view on local civil society. This followed from Foreign Minister George Yeo's earlier comment in November welcoming the involvement of civil society in the work to implement the ASEAN Charter, as well as one of the purposes of the ASEAN Charter being to promote a people-oriented ASEAN. I believe that for the ASEAN Charter to be genuinely people-oriented, each government must canvass for, consider and incorporate the views of its own people.

Unfortunately, it seems that the Government does not quite agree, as can be seen from the Minister's answer to my question, that the way for civil society to participate is through the ASEAN Secretariat. That is a little disappointing, because surely the Singapore Government should at least engage and dialogue with Singapore civil society directly.

OPQ

ASEAN SUMMIT

(Assessment and update of major initiatives)

3. Ms Irene Ng Phek Hoong asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs for an assessment of the ASEAN Summit and an update of the major initiatives discussed and agreed upon, such as the ASEAN Charter.

The Second Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Raymond Lim Siang Keat) (for the Minister for Foreign Affairs): Mr Speaker, Sir, Ms Irene Ng has asked for an assessment of the recent ASEAN Summit in Singapore, which was held from 18-22 November. Overall, the Singapore Summit achieved its main outcomes. Although Myanmar was a major concern, it did not derail the proceedings. I will respond to the questions on Myanmar from Ms Ng later.

First and foremost, Leaders signed the milestone ASEAN Charter. This will transform ASEAN into a more effective and rules-based organisation. This in turn will change the way ASEAN is being perceived, both from within and without the region. However, to ensure that ASEAN realises its full potential as envisaged in the Charter, we need to bring it into force as soon as possible. Thus, ratification and implementation will be a key priority for the next phase of Singapore's Chairmanship as ASEAN Leaders have agreed to aim for ratification of the ASEAN Charter within a year. Singapore itself has already deposited its Instrument of Ratification on 7th January. In addition, as Chair, we will also work towards putting in place the new mechanisms of ASEAN, including dispute settlement mechanisms and start work on the terms of reference of the proposed ASEAN human rights body.

Second, Leaders endorsed a Blueprint on the ASEAN Economic Community. This will help ASEAN realise its goal of an ASEAN Economic Community by 2015 by setting out clear targets and timelines for the implementation of various activities. ASEAN will now begin working on implementing the Blueprint quickly, so that our 10 ASEAN economies can integrate into a single market and production base, capable of competing alongside regional powerhouses like India and China. Similar blueprints will also be established for the other two pillars of community building - the Political-Security and Socio-Cultural pillars.

Third, Leaders also addressed global issues of concern to the region, namely "Energy, Environment, Climate Change and Sustainable Development" and issued three significant Declarations. In particular, ASEAN has resolved to cooperate more closely on key environmental issues such as combating transboundary environmental pollution and sustainable forest management. In fact, with the global focus on climate change, the Singapore Summit has paved the way for sustained dialogue on this key issue and increased regional cooperation. At the subsequent UNFCCC meetings in Bali last month, for instance, ASEAN agreed to work on an ASEAN Climate Change Initiative, which will strengthen ASEAN's coordination and cooperation in addressing Climate Change.

Fourth, besides strengthening ASEAN internally, ASEAN also had productive Summit meetings with its Dialogue Partners like China, Japan, Korea, India and the EU. ASEAN celebrated the 10th Anniversary of ASEAN+3 relations by adopting an important Joint Statement and workplan on East Asia Cooperation. We also had good discussions with the EU on how to deepen our cooperation at the special ASEAN-EU Commemorative Summit marking 30 years of relations. Finally, the 3rd East Asia Summit was a very substantive meeting, with the Leaders discussing the environment and climate change, as well as agreeing to deepen EAS cooperation in important areas like energy security, economics and natural disaster mitigation.

We now look forward to the second half of Singapore's ASEAN Chairmanship, which will culminate with the ASEAN Ministerial Meeting, Post-Ministerial Conferences and the ASEAN Regional Forum that Singapore will host in July. We will continue to push ASEAN to implement important initiatives like the ASEAN Charter, strengthen cooperation in key areas like the environment and transborder challenges, as well as deepen external relations with its various partners.

Ms Irene Ng Phek Hoong (Tampines): Several ASEAN members, including Philippines and some quarters of Indonesia, have indicated that they will stall the signing of the ASEAN Charter until Myanmar resolves its problem. Can I ask the Minister how confident he is that the ASEAN Charter can be ratified by the one-year timeframe?

Mr Raymond Lim Siang Keat: I think it is very important that we get this Charter ratified. And Singapore, at the Chair, will do all that we can to try to ensure that this is done.

Mr Siew Kum Hong: Sir, the Minister has mentioned that the process on drafting the terms of reference for the ASEAN human rights body will proceed. I would just like to ask the Minister how will this process incorporate the views of Singaporeans and Singapore's civil society, given that the ASEAN Charter aims to create a people-centred ASEAN?

Mr Raymond Lim Siang Keat: We already had civil society groups that had given views to ASEAN on the ASEAN Charter and the proposed human rights body. The way to do this is through the ASEAN Secretariat. The think-tank - the Institute of Southeast Asian Studies - has also done so. There is also a working group on ASEAN human rights mechanism co-chaired by Mr Marzuki Darusman and Professor Vitit Muntarbhorn.

Public Forum: Human rights - the Asean Charter and beyond

This is a page with videos of MARUAH's public forum last Saturday, courtesy of WatchTowerHR.