SDP - What has politics to do with human rights?

What has politics to do with human rights?

by Chee Siok Chin


http://yoursdp.org/publ/perspectives/what_has_politics_to_do_with_human_rights/2-1-0-1415





Many people have associated the SDP with democracy, human rights and civil rights. Some have denigrated us for promoting these values, others have lauded us. Regardless – that's what we will continue to do. We're proud that we are bringing the language, the discourse into the political arena in Singapore.

However, it's also important to understand why we do so. Many think that politics and human rights are separate issues. They are not. They are inherently linked. Human rights is good social policy. Policies are made to better the lives of people. They are made to benefit the citizenry.

Human rights is about the right to enjoy these sound policies when they are enacted. For anyone to say that politics does not mix with civil and human rights is to say that politics is only about power and self-preservation. That is not what the SDP is about.

Because human rights have always been at the heart of what our party stands for, and are reflected in all that we do and propose to Singaporeans, we believe that time will show that we have set the country on its proper course. It certainly hasn't been easy, but nothing good achieved ever is. And that's okay, because we're content to know that as pioneers of social justice, our reward is to know that we have given of ourselves to improve the lot of our fellow Singaporeans.

Rewards of power and prestige mean little compared with a healthy society, where the poor and elderly are properly taken care of, where children grow up in a society that nurtures creativity, where one's whole life is not in service of re-paying huge mortgage and absurdly high COE, where the quality of a happy life, a good life is the true objective.

So when people look at our social policies, policies that cry out for a better health care system, more creative schools, lower housing costs, a better transportation system, workers' rights, and civil liberties for all – in short – a higher quality of life that reaffirms the basic rights of everyone living in Singapore, it is about human rights.

Our words are consistent with our deeds. Our deeds are consistent with our policies. Our policies are consistent with our commitment to enriching the lives of those who call themselves Singaporeans.

And that's what the SDP has always been and will always be about – a party that stands up for the rights of our fellow Singaporeans.



Chee Siok Chin is a member of SDP's Central Executive Committee and head of its Training and Development Unit.

This we know and heard many times from SDP. I'd rather hear them raise the issue of hacking or upcoming cyberbullying law.

Thank you SDP for confirming and reaffirming your objectives. The struggle is long. I am with you on this.

Cosmos10 said:

Many people have associated the SDP with democracy, human rights and civil rights. Some have denigrated us for promoting these values, others have lauded us. Regardless – that's what we will continue to do. We're proud that we are bringing the language, the discourse into the political arena in Singapore.

Click to expand...

Can human rights win votes in Singapore?

Human rights activism and electoral politics do not mix well
September 28, 2013 at 7:36pm
by Dr Derek da Cunha

The recent parting of ways between the Singapore Democratic Party and Dr Vincent Wijeysingha throws a spotlight on whether being a civil society and human rights activist gels well with being a successful politician. On this very issue, I read a couple of online commentaries that argued the compatibility between the two activities. Examples were even brought up where civil society activists were elected to political office while continuing with their civil society work. Both activities worked perfectly, so it was argued by some commentators.

Here, I offer a completely different take: it is rarely possible to be a champion of human rights, placing it as a key objective of everything one does, while simultaneously being a successful politician.

The noted American human rights campaigners, the Rev. Jesse Jackson and Rev. Al Sharton, have been highly successful in championing human rights causes, especially that related to the African-American and other minority communities in the US. However, when they have tried to parlay their relative success as human rights advocates into a campaign for elected political office, they have stumbled badly.

A British example that has parallels with Dr Wijeysingha and his work is that of the gay rights campaigner Peter Tatchell. In 1983, Tatchell was nominated by grassroots activists of the Labour Party to stand as the party’s candidate in a by-election for the Bermondsey constituency. Despite the constituency being a solidly Labour stronghold, with the party having secured a 63.6% vote in the 1979 general election, Tatchell lost the seat by a massive margin. The Labour vote collapsed to just 26.1%.

Today, Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, and Peter Tatchell are all highly successful human rights activists. Few media organizations would deny them a platform to advance their causes. All three have also long given up on the idea of elected political office. It took personal experience for them to fully understand the hard, cold electoral realities.

An example from Southeast Asia will further reinforce the point. The relative political liberalization in Burma, which saw democratic icon Daw Aung San Suu Kyi being elected to the lower house of the Burmese Parliament in April 2012, also saw sectarian tensions come to the surface with violence between the majority Buddhists and the minority Rohingya Muslims. In this situation, Daw Aung San Suu Kyi has discovered how extremely difficult it is to champion human rights for all while harbouring her own political ambitions. She has been criticized by international human rights observers for being relatively muted in condemning the sectarian violence in a way that reflects the reality of it being an unequal fight between two communities. According to most independent observers, the Rohingyas have overwhelmingly been at the receiving end of the violence. Daw Suu’s muted response has been widely ascribed to political calculations of not wishing to offend the majority Buddhists whom she will have to rely on if she is to ultimately attain the highest office of president.

Many sociopolitical bloggers in Singapore who, tend to be largely liberal in inclination, have urged opposition politicians to take up human rights causes in a high profile manner. However, I contend that it would be ill-advised for opposition politicians to do so as they would lose a large swathe of middle ground voters, who by instinct are generally socially and politically conservative.

Human rights issues are best championed by dedicated civil society activists. They are not causes that are fertile ground for politicians aspiring for elected office, except if those politicians are prepared to jeopardize their electoral prospects. Thus, the parting of ways between the SDP and Dr Wijeysingha is mutually beneficial. However, because of its previous heavy focus on human rights issues, the SDP still has a significant amount of work and soul-searching to do before it can become electable again, as it was prior to 1992. I will examine this other issue in detail in a subsequent FB note.


Dr Derek da Cunha is author of the books: Breakthrough: Roadmap for Singapore’s Political Future (2012), which is an analysis of the 2011 Singapore general election; and, The Price of Victory: The 1997 Singapore General Election and Beyond (1997).

Copyright © Derek da Cunha
28 September 2013

https://www.facebook.com/notes/dere...al-politics-do-not-mix-well/10152573773768797

Human rights and liberal values have very little traction with the voters even among in the opposition base voters. Maybe just that 5 percent or less will see these values as pivotal in their voting decisions. Yet SDP is channeling an unjustifiable among of time and resources just to please that minority of the minority. I think they are better off paying lip service to human right issues and focus 95% of their energy on bread and butter issues.

3_M said:

Human rights and liberal values have very little traction with the voters even among in the opposition base voters. Maybe just that 5 percent or less will see these values as pivotal in their voting decisions. Yet SDP is channeling an unjustifiable among of time and resources just to please that minority of the minority. I think they are better off paying lip service to human right issues and focus 95% of their energy on bread and butter issues.

Click to expand...

You don't see the link between human rights and the bread and butter issues? When humans have no rights they are not valued. Who cares whether they get bread and butter. Sinkies are still stupid and need to learn the hard way.

Satyr said:

You don't see the link between human rights and the bread and butter issues? When humans have no rights they are not valued. Who cares whether they get bread and butter. Sinkies are still stupid and need to learn the hard way.

Click to expand...

The link is not between human rights and bread and butter issues. The link is between knowledge and bread and butter issues.

You can give the sinkies the rights and will they figure out themselves how the economy works? Will they figure out why the cost of living is rising so high? Do they understand what is needed, not only for employees to have rights, but also for them to continue having rights? Do you know how to fight for worker's rights and still balance that against making Singapore a viable economy?

Suppose you don't like it that your boss is being paid millions while you are being paid peanuts, will they know which levers to pull so that their bosses' asses get kicked?

There are a lot of educated people in the SDP and I think they should also ask themselves these questions, and not only keep on harping on human rights.

The other thing is: the link between human rights and bread and butter is simply that bread and butter is the first and most basic human right. This is something that the old PAP understood, that neither the new PAP nor many critics of Singapore's human rights records understand.

Thick Face Black Heart said:

Can human rights win votes in Singapore?

Click to expand...

i dun envy their situation. they've got to decide between switching tact to win some seats or sticking to their belief....

Satyr said:

You don't see the link between human rights and the bread and butter issues? When humans have no rights they are not valued. Who cares whether they get bread and butter. Sinkies are still stupid and need to learn the hard way.

Click to expand...

The academic definition of human rights is clear, but the demonstration of these human rights by western societies distorted the picture and portrayed something different. Human rights would not be a western concept if it involved protests, since it was the Asian countries that protested more.

Western culture is dominant in the world and influenced Singapore, and to ride on that, the Singapore PAP linked their actions to what will happen if "human rights" took root in Singapore. To rub salt into their own wounds, SDP themselves linked their actions to human rights, but stated the academic definition at forums and dialogues.

The issue is not about SDP's belief in human rights, but the way SDP sold the message and their own confusion.

SgParent said:

i dun envy their situation. they've got to decide between switching tact to win some seats or sticking to their belief....

Click to expand...

To be exact, switching tact to win some seats or sticking to their belief and carve a niche.

I don't necessarily agree that everyone in SDP means human rights, but to differentiate themselves from the other parties. And had they not taken this route, they would have been in NSP's place and even better.

There are always limits to human rights. Some people just deserves to be dealt with for the things they have done. Like murders, drug dealers etc.