PM Thaksin say US is a USeless Friend - what will GCT say ?
-
The US has released Human Rights Report for each country, and had riled the Thai PM Thaksin to reply that the US is a USeless friend.
What will PM GCT say about the report concerning Singapore ?
Extracts from the report are taken from the following website:
http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/hrrpt/2003/27788.htm
Portions of the Report that are of particular interests are:
e. Denial of Fair Public Trial
The Constitution provides for an independent judiciary, and the Government generally respected this provision; however, in practice, laws that limit judicial review permit restrictions on Constitutional rights. Some judicial officials, especially Supreme Court judges, have ties to the ruling party and its leaders. The President appoints judges to the Supreme Court on the recommendation of the Prime Minister and in consultation with the Chief Justice. The President also appoints subordinate court judges on the recommendation of the Chief Justice. The term of appointment is determined by the Legal Service Commission, of which the Chief Justice is the Chairman. Under the ISA and the CLA, the President and the Minister of Home Affairs have substantial de facto judicial power, which explicitly (in the case of the ISA) or implicitly (in the case of the CLA) excludes normal judicial review. These laws provide the Government with the power to limit, on vaguely defined national security grounds, the scope of certain fundamental liberties that otherwise is provided for in the Constitution.
Government leaders historically have used court proceedings, in particular defamation suits, against political opponents and critics (see Sections 2.a. and 3). Both this practice and consistent awards in favor of government plaintiffs raised questions about the relationship between the Government and the judiciary and led to a perception that the judiciary reflected the views of the ruling party in politically sensitive cases.
Opposition leader Chee Soon Juan, charged with defamation by the Prime Minister and Senior Minister arising from comments Chee made during the 2001 election campaign, stated he was unable to retain experienced local counsel (see Section 2.a.). Chee requested that the judge hearing the case allow a foreign lawyer to represent him. In April 2002, the judge ruled that he had not established that the complexity of his case merited foreign counsel and refused the request. In an August 2002 summary judgment proceeding, Chee represented himself unsuccessfully. He protested that the judge's bar against foreign counsel had significantly handicapped his ability to receive a fair hearing. In February, Chee again represented himself in an appeal of the summary judgment. An April High Court judgment denied the appeal. The Lawyer's Committee for Human Rights (LCHR), which observed the February hearing, issued a report that criticized the process, especially the absence of counsel for Chee in court. The Government, and the lawyer for the Prime Minister and Senior Minister, rejected the organization's criticisms, noting that Chee had extensive legal help in preparing his briefs, and that it is not uncommon for local courts to disapprove applications for foreign counsel.
The judicial system provides citizens with an efficient judicial process. In normal cases, the Criminal Procedures Code provides that a charge against a defendant must be read and explained to him as soon as it is framed by the prosecution or the magistrate. Defendants enjoy a presumption of innocence and the right of appeal in most cases. They have the right to be present at their trials and to be represented by an attorney; the Law Society administers a criminal legal aid plan for those who cannot afford to hire an attorney. Defendants also have the right to question opposing witnesses, to provide witnesses and evidence on their own behalf, and to review government-held evidence relevant to their cases. Trials are public and heard by a judge; there are no jury trials. Despite the general presumption of innocence, the Misuse of Drugs Act (MDA) stipulates that a person whom the prosecution proves has illegal narcotics in his possession, custody or control shall be assumed to be aware of the substance, and places the burden on the defendant to prove otherwise. The same law also stipulates that, if the amount of the narcotic is above set low limits, it is the defendant's burden to prove he did not have the drug for the purpose of trafficking. Convictions for narcotics trafficking offenses carry lengthy jail sentences or the death penalty, depending on the type and amount of the illegal substance. Persons charged with a capital offense under the MDA have the right to a public trial and to appeal conviction.
The Constitution extends these rights to all citizens; however, persons detained under the ISA or CLA are not entitled to a public trial. In addition, proceedings of the advisory board under the ISA and CLA are not public (see Section 1.d.).
There is a two-tier military court system, which has jurisdiction over all military servicemen, civilians in the service of the Armed Forces, and volunteers when they are ordered to report for service. The Military Court of Appeal has the jurisdiction to examine an appeal from a person convicted at a subordinate military court. Trials are public and the defendants have the right to be present. An accused individual also has the right to defense representation. -
f. Arbitrary Interference with Privacy, Family, Home, or Correspondence
The Constitution does not address privacy rights. The Government generally respected the privacy of homes and families; however, it has a pervasive influence over civic and economic life and sometimes uses its broad discretionary powers to infringe on these rights. Normally the police must have a warrant issued by a court to conduct a search; however, they may search a person, home, or a property without a warrant if they decide that such a search is necessary to preserve evidence. The Government has wide-ranging discretionary powers under the ISA, CLA, MDA, and UPA to conduct searches without a warrant if it determines that national security, public safety and order, or the public interest is at risk. Defendants may request judicial review of such searches.
Law enforcement agencies, including the Internal Security Department and the Corrupt Practices Investigation Board, have extensive networks for gathering information and conducting surveillance, and highly sophisticated capabilities to monitor telephone and other private conversations. No court warrants are required for such operations. It is believed that the authorities routinely monitor telephone conversations and the use of the Internet; however, there were no confirmed reports of such practices during the year. The law permits government monitoring of Internet use. It is widely believed that the authorities routinely conduct surveillance on some opposition politicians and other government critics; however, no such reports were substantiated during the year.
In pursuit of what it considers the public interest, the Government generally enforces ethnic ratios for publicly subsidized housing, where the majority of citizens live and own their own units. The policy is designed to achieve an ethnic mix more or less in proportion to that in society at large (see Sections 1.d. and 5). When a housing development is at or near the limit for a particular ethnic group, the policy could mean owners find it difficult to sell their apartments, or must sell at a lower price.
Section 2 Respect for Civil Liberties, Including:
a. Freedom of Speech and Press
The Constitution provides for freedom of speech and freedom of expression but permits official restrictions on these rights, and, in practice, the Government significantly restricted freedom of speech and freedom of the press. The Government's authoritarian style fostered an atmosphere inimical to free speech and a free press. Government intimidation and pressure to conform resulted in the practice of self-censorship among journalists; however, there continued to be some limited progress towards greater openness during the year, including a moderate level of ongoing debate in newspapers and Internet chat groups on various public issues.
Under the ISA, the Government may restrict or place conditions on publications that incite violence, counsel disobedience to the law, have the potential to arouse tensions in the country's diverse population, or might threaten national interests, national security, or public order. While the ISA has not been invoked in recent years against political opponents of the Government, political opposition and criticism remained restricted by the Government's authority to define these powers broadly. Occasional government references to speech that it considered "out-of-bounds" were understood to be implicit threats to invoke the ISA; however, these limits are not codified, and journalists and others generally believed these limitations have shifted toward greater tolerance in recent years.
The country's defamation laws make it relatively easy for plaintiffs to win substantial judgments for damages and legal costs. Conviction on criminal defamation charges can result in a prison sentence of up to 2 years, a fine, or both. Threats of defamation actions often persuade newspapers and others to apologize and pay damages for perceived slights, a situation which prompts general caution in expressing criticisms. Critics charged that government leaders used defamation lawsuits or threats of such actions to discourage public criticism and intimidate opposition politicians and the press. The unbroken success of government leaders' suits in the last decade has fostered public caution about political speech and a culture of self-censorship within the news media, and has inhibited opposition politics. During the last decade, ruling party leaders sued opposition politicians J.B. Jeyaretnam, Chee Soon Juan, and Tang Liang Hong for defamation several times. The Government argued that these individuals had repeatedly defamed ruling party leaders, who then acted to clear their names. At the end of 2001, Senior Minister Lee Kuan Yew and Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong sued opposition leader Chee Soon Juan for defamation, based upon comments Chee made during a campaign stop prior to the November 2001 general election. During the 2001 campaign, Chee issued a public apology, which he later retracted, then countersued the Senior Minister for calling him a "liar" and a "cheat." In August 2002, a court ruled that Chee's earlier statements effectively had conceded the defamation charges, but ordered a hearing to set the amount of damages. Chee represented himself in the hearing after being refused permission to retain foreign counsel (see Section 1.e.). The court has yet to decide the amount Chee will have to pay the two ministers.
In 2002, the Bloomberg news service publicly apologized and agreed to pay $340,000 (S$595,000) in damages to Prime Minister Goh and Senior Minister Lee Kuan Yew for an Internet-distributed Bloomberg column that accused them of nepotism. The column alleged that Ms. Ho Ching, Deputy Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong's wife, was promoted to the senior position in the main government investment holding company because of her relationship with the senior leadership. Also in 2002, police seized the computers of two men as part of a formal investigation into whether their Internet postings the previous month had constituted criminal defamation. These postings also had raised the issue of nepotism. One of the men, Zulfikar Mohamad Shariff, later left the country for Australia, asserting that the country's judicial system was biased politically. The other man complained that, 2 weeks after seizure of his computer, authorities had compelled him to stay in a mental facility for more than a week; authorities claimed his wife requested that he be committed to the facility. In 2001, other criminal charges against the man for an Internet posting were dropped after a government consultant told the court he had longstanding mental problems, and his wife agreed to send him for treatment. No further developments in the police investigations were reported at year's end.
In 2001, the SBA ordered Sintercom, which ran an online discussion forum that included some political postings, to register with the authorities as a political website. Registration as a political site underlined the responsibility of organizers to ensure that site content complied with the Code of Conduct. After an unsuccessful appeal, Sintercom complied with the request. Soon thereafter, the founder and sponsor of the site shut it down, citing fatigue after 7 years on the job. In May 2002, an anonymous editor resurrected the Sintercom website, hosting it on servers outside of the country. The site was still operating at year's end. -
b. Freedom of Peaceful Assembly and Association
The Constitution provides citizens the right to peaceful assembly but permits Parliament to impose restrictions "it considers necessary or expedient" in the interest of security, public order, or morality. In practice, the Government restricted this right. Public assemblies of five or more persons, including political meetings and rallies, require police permission (see Section 2.a.). Spontaneous public gatherings or demonstrations were virtually unknown. The Government closely monitored political gatherings regardless of the number of persons present. Persons who wished to speak at a public function, excluding functions provided by or under the auspices of the Government, needed to obtain a public entertainment license from the police; however, in 2001, new regulations exempted some cultural events (such as Chinese operas or lion dances), requiring 7-day advance notice to the police in lieu of a permit. In the past, opposition politicians routinely experienced delays before being notified of decisions on their applications for speaking permits, although the Government claimed that the delays came only when applications were submitted late. According to the police, the normal processing time for an application is 7 working days from the date of receipt.
In October 2002, Singapore Democratic Party leader Chee Soon Juan and a colleague were convicted of holding an unauthorized rally in May 2002 at the entrance to the compound where senior government leaders maintained their offices (see Section 2.a.). In 2001, authorities approved two public rallies by opposition political activists; one was a rally in support of the Singapore Democratic Party, and the other was to raise money for defamation judgments against opposition politician J.B. Jeyaretnam. In both cases, authorities required the hiring of security guards for crowd control, which organizers complained increased costs significantly. In July, the Government permitted the Singapore Democratic Party to hold an "International Youth Conference for Democracy." Over 100 delegates from Europe, Asia, and the U.S. attended the 3-day event.
In August, the Government granted a permit for a second annual 3-day, 2,500-person festival advertised to homosexuals around Asia. On December 5, the police denied a public entertainment license for a forum on Burma organized by the Alliance for Reform and Democracy in Asia and the Taiwan Foundation for Democracy, asserting that, "The proposed event is likely to be contrary to the public interest." The police did grant a license for a December 6 event organized by an NGO to present the Human Rights Defender award to J.B. Jeyaretnam, former MP and former Secretary General of the Workers' Party.
Most associations, societies, clubs, religious groups, and other organizations with more than 10 members are required to register with the Government under the Societies Act. The Government denied registration to groups that it believed were likely to have been formed for unlawful purposes or for purposes prejudicial to public peace, welfare, or public order. During the last 5 years, authorities denied registration to 10 of 1,236 groups seeking registration. The Government has absolute discretion in applying criteria to register or dissolve societies. The Government prohibits organized political activities except by groups registered as political parties or political organizations. This prohibition limits opposition activities, and contributes to restricting the scope of unofficial political expression and action (see Section 3). The prohibition affected the PAP less because of its long domination of the Government and its overwhelming parliamentary majority; the PAP traditionally has been able to use nonpolitical organizations such as residential committees and neighborhood groups for political purposes far more extensively than opposition political parties. Political parties and organizations are subject to strict financial regulations, including a ban on receiving foreign donations. Due to laws regulating the formation of publicly active organizations, there were few NGOs, apart from nonpolitical organizations such as religious groups, ethnically affiliated organizations, and providers of welfare services.
c. Freedom of Religion
Under the Societies Act, the Government bans meetings of Jehovah's Witnesses and the Unification Church. The Government deregistered and banned Jehovah's Witnesses in 1972 on the grounds that its approximately 200 members refused to perform obligatory military service, salute the flag, or swear oaths of allegiance to the State. The Government regarded such refusals as prejudicial to public welfare and order. While the Government did not outlaw the profession or propagation of the beliefs of Jehovah's Witnesses and does not arrest members merely for being believers, the result of deregistration was to make meetings of Jehovah's Witnesses illegal. The community now numbers approximately 2,000 in the country, and Jehovah's Witnesses continue to refuse to perform national military service. The Government also banned all written materials published by the Jehovah's Witnesses' publishing affiliates, the International Bible Students Association and the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society. In July, the authorities confiscated a Bible, published by the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society, from a amber of the Jehovah's Witnesses as he entered the country. A person in possession of banned literature can be fined up to $1,140 (S$2,000), and for holding a meeting, the fine can be as high as $2,285 (S$4,000). During the year, the authorities seized Jehovah's Witnesses' literature on 30 occasions from individuals attempting to cross the Malaysia-Singapore land border. In 13 cases, authorities warned the Jehovah's Witnesses, but did not press charges. The other 17 cases remain open.
During the year, the Ministry of Education indefinitely suspended eight students who were members of Jehovah's Witnesses for failure to sing the national anthem and participate in the flag ceremony. This brings to 30 the number of such cases since 2000. All 30 students have made alternate schooling arrangements; none have returned to public school. The students can return if they are prepared to sing the anthem, salute the flag, and say the pledge of allegiance. In 2001, a long-time public school teacher, who was a member of the Jehovah's Witnesses, resigned after being threatened with dismissal and disciplinary action for refusing to sing the national anthem.
Missionaries, with the exception of members of Jehovah's Witnesses and representatives of the Unification Church, were permitted to work, publish, and distribute religious texts. However, while the Government did not prohibit evangelical activities in practice, it discouraged activities that could upset inter-communal relations, such as unsolicited public proselytizing.
For a more detailed discussion, see the 2003 International Religious Freedom Report: http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/irf/2003/ -
somehw i agree... no point having US as a friend... but... i like to have friends rather than enemies yea?
-
GCT would say, "well, life's like that, we'll just have to grit our teeth and bear with it, don't worry the govt would try our best to help those in need, we will not forget those of you who have supported us though these years"
-
u never know one day u will need their help........?
useless now
but might turn useful some day in future......... -
GCT/SGrean very practical...1 less enemy is better...then 1 more.
cannot depend on MINDEF alone. -
If he says that, then add it to the list of broken promises that have been uttered.Originally posted by oldbreadstinks:GCT would say, "well, life's like that, we'll just have to grit our teeth and bear with it, don't worry the govt would try our best to help those in need, we will not forget those of you who have supported us though these years"
US is a useless "friend", indeed. -
?Originally posted by FireIce:u never know one day u will need their help........?
useless now
but might turn useful some day in future.........
er... are you tlaking about the us or our govt? -
US human right record not better than other countries. Does US has the right to make comments on other countries.
Any country who has improve human right should not be questioned (eg China, Tailand etc).
Singapore human right is good but the adult human right is not improved. Gov always like to control adult. -
GCT wont say lah. jayakumar will say something like 'singapore long time friends of US with good business relationship, US presence in the region help to maintain peace , US war against iraq are war against terror'
meaning, we need US dollars. we scare US military power, even US cannot find weapon of mass destruction but they have caught the big terror saddam, so war effort is justify'
without US coming to singapore, orchard tower no business, SPG no target. big problem for singapore economy.