Ho Wah Jiang

Joel Tan

Tang Pei Hui Benjamin

How Kwang Ming

Izumi Tan

One of the world’s leading nonprofit, Non-Governmental Organisations (NGOs) which advocate and research for human rights

Founded in 1978 Shared the 1997 Nobel

Peace Prize

Pursues the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

Opposes human rights violations. Against capital punishment and sexual

discrimination among other perceived wrongs.

Strongly supports the fundamental freedoms such as freedom of religion and freedom of the press.

• The Human Rights Watch is “known for its accurate fact-finding, impartial reporting, effective use of media, and targeted advocacy, often in partnership with local human rights groups. Each year, Human Rights Watch publishes more than 100 reports and briefings on human rights conditions in some 80 countries, generating extensive coverage in local and international media. “

-Human Rights Watch

Press for changes in policy and practice, changes that improve the living conditions of people around the world, in terms of human rights.

How? Ministerial level meetings with governments Meetings with regional groups (EU, AU),

financial institutions (IMF, WB), and corporations (MNCs)

Why them?

“”Singapore remains an authoritarian state with strict curbs on freedom of expression,

assembly, and association; denial of due process rights; draconian defamation laws; and tight controls on independent political activity.”

- Human Rights Watch Annual Report 2009

The Issue: Singapore’s (PAP) heavy handed methods of dealing with opposition. The use of the ISA is heavily criticized in the past, but recently the spotlight is concentrated on the use of defamation suits.

1st Case Study: On October 13, 2008, the High Court ordered the Singapore

Democratic Party (SDP), its secretary general, Dr. Chee Soon Juan, and his sister, Chee Siok Chin, to pay Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong and his father, Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew, a total of SD$610,000 (US$416,000)

Because of an article in the party's newsletter comparing the way Singapore is governed to a scandal at a well-known charity.

HRW’s Response:

"Using defamation laws to silence peaceful political speech makes a mockery of Singapore's claim to be a model democracy. Opposition criticism of the government is an essential ingredient of a democratic political system.“

“"The history of defamation in Singapore shows a pattern of making people pay dearly for exercising the basic right of peaceful expression. Singapore has nothing to fear from a vocal opposition and its people have everything to gain."

2nd Case Study:

Abuse of detention powers: Imprisonment of Chee Soon Juan on November 23, 2006 for speaking publicly without a permit on April 22, 2006 in opposition to the ruling People’s Action Party (PAP)

Since 1999, the authorities have jailed Chee on three other occasions for violating the city-state’s laws restricting public speech and assembly despite Chee’s poor health and prison officials responded indifferently and remained untreated for one week until it complicated in which prison authorities finally transferred him to the hospital’s prison ward

Raises the issue of undemocratic laws: No more than 4 for can protest in public; currently, even this limited freedom is being curtailed under the Public Security Act.

HRW’s Response:

“Once again, the Singaporean government has reacted to public criticism by jailing the critic. Dr. Chee should be released immediately, before his health deteriorates further.”

“It’s as if Singapore’s draconian restrictions on free speech apply to Dr. Chee’s doctors. The government seems to think that the less that anyone other than the relevant authorities know, the easier it would be to contain public attention to the message he carried. But a vibrant outspoken civil society is just what the doctor should order for Singapore.”

HRW’s overall stand:

Singapore should discontinue such practices because it violates the right to free expression.

The Issue: Singapore’s laws protecting the rights of migrant domestic workers are not enough in ensuring their rights. This is a slightly less controversial issue because it does not pertain to democracy in Singapore and the authoritarian tendencies of the government.

Current Situation: Singapore employs approximately 160,000 domestic

workers. Standard contracts fails to provide them with basic

protection. We need only look at the newspapers. It recommends, but does not require, that employers

provide workers at least eight hours of continuous rest and gives employers the option of providing extra pay OR a rest day. This hints at near slavery.

HRW’s Stand:

Domestic workers in Singapore should be given the same level of labour protections provided all other workers in Singapore under the Employment Act.

HRW’s Response: “Domestics should enjoy the same rights as

other Singaporean workers, including a day off, limits on their working hours and caps on salary deductions.”

“Domestic workers need regular days off to rest, to escape the isolation at work and sometimes to report abuse. It’s shocking that an advanced economy like Singapore won’t give domestic workers a weekly day off.

“The current system is absurd and unfair”

Ideological biases Coverage/comments on international

matters 4 other dubious biases (wikipedia.org)

The Human Rights Watch has failed to push for A universal definition of human rights

Yardsticks to decide what is considered morally right or wrong

Essential in preventing violation of human rights

And to promote discussions regarding human rights-related issues

A drawback that is inherent in many other prominent human rights groups

The Human Rights Watch has often neglected economic-related issues

HRW website’s list of topics had only a handful of economic-related causes

Most of these were also slanted towards political and social spheres

“Human Rights Watch is one of the world’s leading independent organizations dedicated to defending and protecting human rights”

Disregard for economic issues reflects a lack of scope and ineffectuality

Institution focuses on certain issues while ignoring others

Being more harsh to certain organizations/countries

Compromises impartiality and effectiveness of work

Reduces support

The states that are most democratic, most free and most open give human rights groups and individuals the most opportunity to unearth human rights abuse stories.

The states that are the most authoritarian, most oppressive and most repressive give human rights groups and individuals the least opportunity to unearth human rights abuse stories.

What problems arise from this paradox? The significance of this paradox and the

perceived bias HRW has on HRW and its work?

Failed to recognize destabilization of Venezuela’s society by American-backed coup of Hugo Chavez’s administration

Ignored the thousands of deaths of those who had gone against the US-supported coup of Haiti’s democratic government

HRW did not bring into light the at times brutal offensives of Israel

On the other hand, constantly criticised the Arabs for their attacks of Israeli territories

“Arab launching a projectile at an Israeli target is by definition a war criminal, because such rockets and mortars are — unlike the state-of-the-art shells and missiles fired by Israel at apartment blocks, schools, hospitals, and UN facilities — not precision-guided and therefore incapable of distinguishing between a military and civilian target”

We support the HRW because: Like other humanitarian causes, it fights for the

rights of human beings Encourages state governments to improve on

their respect for human rights Works for the good of all human beings,

ignoring allegiances, races or religions (most of the time)

No matter HRW’s ideological biases, the general direction in which HRW moves is one that benefits mankind

No matter HRW’s selective biases, it maintains a high relatively high level of impartiality

Bibliography

Human Rights Watch Various scholarly articles ?????