". . . Singapore's Attorney-General . . . warned against 'fanatics' who seize on the cause to further their own political agendas." (Straits Times, "A-G cautions against human rights becoming 'a religion' with fanatics", 31 May 2008)

Before the news of Gopalan Nair's arrest became the talking point, The Straits Times carried an interesting little report saying that Singapore's Attorney-General (A-G) Prof Woon is cautioning (Singaporeans, presumably) of "fanatics" who further their political agendas by exploiting human rights as a cause. Coming after the court drama between the Chees and the Lees, it probably doesn't take anything more than a stupid bimbo like Molly to to imagine that the likes of the Chees were examples in the A-G's mind. After all, which other politicians in Singapore make noise about human rights? Certainly not the great PAP politicians who are, as we know, practical people who focus on building the economy even at the expense of worthless, intangibal things such as free expression.

Yet, bimbos like Molly, given their limited intelligence, obviously cannot help but be perplexed by the immense complexity of the A-G's ideas.

On the one hand, the A-G is talking about human rights fanatics--people who are so obsessed with human rights that it has become akin to a religion to them. In other words, these people believe in human rights and will go great lengths for the cause. On the other hand, the picture that the A-G is painting for us seems quite different. It is as though (maybe I'm mistaken for I'm just a bimbo) he is suggesting that these people are just exploiiting the human rights issue for their political agenda, that is, to score poltical points. In other words, they are not really serious about human rights.

Maybe it's just Molly, but it sounds paradoxical. Am I supposed to understand that people like Chee Soon Juan believe so much in human rights  that it has become like a religion to them, and, at the same time, they do not really believe in human rights but are just using the cause to further themselves politically? (Let's not even care that nothing he could do now would further him politically in the foreseeable future.)

So Chee believes in human rights and he does not. This is so complex that it is actually unbloggable except by bimbos who overestimate themselves. But Prof Woon thinks it is "hypocrisy" for these people to decide what is acceptable for the rest of society. Molly understands this point. It is certainly hypocritical to tell people that they can decide what they want for themselves when you don't even give them to right to decide not to decide for themselves. (But it is apparently not hypocritical to have democratic institutions while telling people that democracy is bad. Maybe because it is just pretension, not hypocrisy.)

You have to forgive Molly for not being able to comprehend what Prof Woon is saying. He was addressing an audience of lawyers who, as everyone knows, are not bimbos.

Somehow, Prof Woon seems to think, the human rights issue cannot be political. "We have to be careful when we are talking about public law and not to confuse it with politics," he says. That's again very complex. Isn't politics partly a matter of law-making and, whenever necessary, law-changing? The Parliament makes laws, doesn't it? And the composition of the Parliament is a political matter, isn't it?

Maybe it's just that politics cannot be political. Or, to put it more simply, maybe the idea is that we cannot go against the ruling party just because it doesn't respect our rights. But no. I'm sure the A-G is not partisan. So you see how perplexed I am . . . 

But perhaps the most fascinating of all the the theory that human rights cannot be seen as human rights. Yes, I know it's one of those silly paradoxes, but you have to believe me. Prof Woon warns that in some places (either he didn't give examples of these places or the ST didn't bother to cite his examples), religions are insulted and proponents of gay marriages frame their cause as a matter of human rights.

And that's  . . . wrong. It's obvious. It's wrong to insult other people's religions. You can't possibly say that you have the right to do it. (Note, though, that when religious people insult your sexuality, they are just upholding public morality, regardless of whether it's their right or not.) Prof Woon also thinks that same-sex marriage cannot be framed as a matter of human rights. Why? Because governments that criminalize gay sex and do not allow gay marriage would look as if they are abusing human rights. And you know that governments, especially the Singapore government, cannot be put in a bad light--because, well, Singaporeans will suffer and the country will collapse if the ruling party that forms the government is not perceived as sacred. And that's when Chee Soon Juan would dance around in joy. We know this since we were in Kindergarten.

"But is this what we want?... Is this a question of human rights?" asks Prof Woon. But of course. Why can't you look at the issue from the perspective of rights. Of course you can! Except that Prof Woon doesn't seem to believe that it is our right to frame the issue in the way we see it. Oh sorry, I mean, he seems to think that it is not to the public's interest to define a human rights issue as a human rights issue. It is the prerogative of the powers that be who know that they know best to decide which perspective you should see things from. "Is this what we want?" Obviously the we excludes those who disagree.

But what am I saying? I must be going crazy. Please ignore whatever I've said. I'm sorry if I've made it sound as though Prof Woon is an ardent supporter of the establishment. But, hey, I said from the start that I didn't understand that you still read on. Irresponsible reader. You can't say that it's your right to read what you want. It's a matter of what you should read or not for your own good. Tsk. Tsk. Fancy reading the posts of bimbotic, irresponsible bloggers.

Maybe we should enlist the help of our favorite darling Prof Thio Li-ann. According to the ST: 

"[S]uch rights [as the right to free expression] must be balanced against a responsibility towards the public at large, she [Prof Thio] said, citing the example of a racist blogger who was jailed in 2005 on fears his rants could split society."

Oh shucks. That doesn't clarify things for my bimbotic mind. Either his (whichever racist blogger Prof Thio was referring to) rants split society or they did not. If they did, there would have been a good reason to send him to jail. Is Prof Thio saying that the blogger was jailed not as a matter of justice but out of "fears"? (Maybe she has her fears, but please don't ever call her homophobic. She doesn't like it.)

Anyway, my question is whether any sane person in the world is saying that having the right to free expression is as good as having the right to be irresponsible? If not, what is the balance that Prof Thio is speaking of?

Maybe (I'm just saying maybe, since I can't read her mind) she thinks that gay rights activists should not fight for gay rights but should be responsible to society and shut up in case the social fabric is torn. But that leaves the question of whether she is being irresponsible and potentially causing the same society to split precisely because she insists on defining issues her way.

Oh well, I guess is always better to have society torn by elite hands than to have them torn by the hands of rowdy gay peasants. Or the hands of bimbotic bloggers who don't understand a thing.

A-G cautions against human rights becoming a 'religion' with fanatics
Chong Chee Kin, 31 May 2008
Straits Times

AMID a new push by the legal community to raise awareness about human rights, Singapore's Attorney-General has warned against 'fanatics' who seize on the cause to further their own political agendas.

Human rights has become a 'religion' that breeds devotees who border on the fanatic, Professor Walter Woon said on Thursday.
It would be 'hypocrisy' for such people to decide what is acceptable for the rest of society, he said.

Prof Woon made the comments to over 100 lawyers and embassy officials at a Law Society gathering on Thursday. The event marked the launch of the professional body's Public and International Law Committee headed by Dr Thio Su Mien, founding partner of TSMP Law Corporation. The committee is designed to raise awareness about topics like public law, a field that deals with human rights and constitutional issues.

'We have to be careful when we are talking about public law and not to confuse it with politics,' said Prof Woon.

He also warned against a no-holds-barred society. In some places, he said, religions were targets for insults and advocates for same-sex marriage were allowed to frame their cause under the banner of human rights.

'But is this what we want?... Is this a question of human rights?' he asked.

He and Professor Thio Li-ann of the National University of Singapore were speakers at the launch of the Law Society committee on Thursday.

Prof Thio said foreigners have criticised Singapore's civil rights record, including the state of freedom of expression.

But such rights must be balanced against a responsibility towards the public at large, she said, citing the example of a racist blogger who was jailed in 2005 on fears his rants could split society.

Human rights issues are wider than just a right to the freedom of expression, Prof Thio said. They also include things like the right to work and the right to clean water.

'(In Singapore) the idea is that economics must come first. No point having free speech if your rice bowl is empty. But I disagree, because if my rice bowl is empty, I would like to say that I am hungry,' she said.

The president of the Law Society, Senior Counsel Michael Hwang, said lawyers have to be 'alive' to the legal avenues they can use to challenge decisions by the authorities.

Despite the fact that it's one of the first courses lawyers take, the practice of public law has slipped, said Mr Hwang.

He blamed public ignorance and the reluctance of clients to challenge authorities like statutory boards, Government agencies and tribunals.
Lawyer Raymond Chan, the former president of the Singapore Institute of Arbitrators, agreed, adding that Singapore's public law is not as developed as other legal sectors, like criminal law.

In the latest issue of the Law Gazette, the society's official magazine, Mr Hwang said there were several areas where citizens could question decisions made by authorities. The list includes rulings from licensing centres and statutory boards.

'In an age where commercial activities are increasingly becoming regulated by statutory authorities, it is important for lawyers to be able to advise whether (they) are exercising the regulatory powers (properly),' he said.