19 Jun 2006

The price of freedom

When overseas political party leaders make comments or issue press releases about the state of human rights in Singapore, we know that the work of the democratic freedom fighters have not been put to waste. It is a shame however that Helen Clark has decided not to discuss any of these issues with Mr Lee.

The price of freedom
Monday, 19 June 2006, 4:47 pm
Press Release: Green Party
Dr. Russel Norman
Spokesperson on economics, electoral matters and trade

The price of freedom

19 June 2006

“Helen Clark’s reported comments that she did not intend to raise human rights issues with Singapore’s Prime Minister Lee during his visit are quite shocking,” Green Party Co-Leader Russel Norman says.

“If true, it is inexcusable that the Government refuses to raise or criticise human rights in Singapore during the visit of Singapore’s Prime Minister. I can only presume that this is because of the sensitivity over trade issues,” says Dr. Norman, the Green Party trade spokesperson.

“The Singapore Government routinely suppresses free speech and the right to free assembly, as documented by Amnesty International reports.

“We have a duty to the ordinary citizens of Singapore to speak out about the human rights abuses of their Government because they are not allowed to speak out themselves.

The leader of the opposition in Singapore faces expulsion from parliament because he dared speak out against the Government. He was sued for defamation and fined $500,000 and now faces bankruptcy and expulsion from parliament, just as the leader of the opposition Workers’ Party was before him.

“If the price of freedom is eternal vigilance, as Thomas Jefferson once said, then we shouldn’t let our vigilance lapse just because the Government is aiming at more free trade deals in Asia.

“If New Zealand MPs were thrown out of parliament for disagreeing with the Government, would we not expect other democratic nations to speak out,” asks Dr. Norman.


Anonymous said...

At least our foreign friends have the eyes and the courage to criticize. Very well, thank you.

Don't expect this article to be printed in the newspapers, so we are luckly that internet exists.

However, I don't it is a shame that human rights wasn't discussed. Think about it, nothing will be done after the message is received and our ministers will start their speechys about 'we still enjoy life under authoritarian leadership blah blah...' in countries they visit. Why waste your breath?

rench00 said...

democratic freedom fighters? so now these people have a label! how fun! do you guys have badges? and uniforms? silly little hats? c'mon, you must have silly little hats.

and how have you guys improved the lives of Singaporeans? more people can now shoot their mouths off. and that means our lives are better off? riiight.

Anonymous said...

>democratic freedom fighters?

That reminds me of rebels... Let see... Maoists in Nepal? Close enough. The next thing they will say is Chee is a terrorist.

Anyway there is an article about the freedom of speech again on ST. Same old story defending their ideas.

tortoise1313 said...


Evil deed of Chinese Communist Party to maintain its one party political power – including Organ Harvesting from LIVING Falun Gong practitioners in Labour Camp in China



To download ‘9 ping’ 《九评共产党》- (writings of evil Chinese Communist party) http://www.epochtimes.com/gb/4/12/13/n746020.htm (Source: 9ping.com)

or tune in to 106.5 FM (radio) for the reading of 9ping everyday at 3pm and 10pm

Capt_Canuck said...

"We have a duty to the ordinary citizens of Singapore to speak out about the human rights abuses of their Government because they are not allowed to speak out themselves"

The problem about speaking out about human rights has a few problems.

1) you have to make sure that the people you are fighting for want those rights or want that freedom. If they dont, then your noble cause turns you into nothing more than...well, the United States of America.

2) what is considered a human right to you, might not be a human right to them. For instance, we may consider it a human right for women to wear clothes they want, but if the religion of a certain country says 'no, we forbid it' then who is right? the people who want to force women to wear clothes or the religions/society that sets forth a certain dress code?

To each their own and until the country/society screams out for help and specifically requests it, stay away

rench00 said...

brilliant point! my main contention with these 'freedom fighters' is that they, like USA, assume that the rights are neccessarily good for everyone and that everyone wants to make sacrifices to get those 'rights'.

while i agree that human rights are important, there is a time and place for everything. and human rights should be seen as a means to a greater end - a better life, rather than as ends upon themselves.

Matilah_Singapura said...

This bloody greenie is spouting utter crap.

Greenies are the worst when it comes to limiting freedom—they want to force V-8 owners to be more "socially responsible" and drive smaller cars or better yet take socialised transport or cycle or walk everywhere.

The greenies are the biggest anti-consumer wankers that god ever put breath into— fro e.g. save the fucken whales—yeah, deny the Japanese their right to eat what they like...global warming and associated nonsense presented in a way to scare the shit out of fun-loving consumers and the great capitalists who "make it happen".

Greenie assholes are the first ones to go screaming to govt for more "controls and regulations"...

...so what is this shit about being Jeffersonian regarding "vigilance" and "freedom"?

Thoman Jefferson was a great believer in PRIVATE PROPERTY and almost an ANARCHIST when it came to state power: i.e. he was always cautioning about state power and its ability to become an "intolerable monster".