Human Rights - Walter Woon is commenting from a global perspective

I know this will rub many the wrong way. But since when I have been known to be playing to the gallery?

Did you see the storm in the teacup? I know my opponents will see the storm. I see the teacup. Here is a report (courtesy by Molly Meek) of AG Woon’s speech on the above. http://mollymeek.livejournal.com/191432.html (scroll down to half way the page)

I take note that AG Woon did not mention any particular party. Yet we have parties who jump the gun, because they feel they have been targeted, or at least their ideals have been targeted.

I see the bigger picture. Human rights is just not about “my rights”, but fairness and justice. However, in today’s world, it has truly turned into “my rights”, rather than fairness and justice.

Let’s use Woon’s actual words and see if it is true.

“Human rights has become a ‘religion’ that breeds devotees who border on the fanatic.

It would be ‘hypocrisy’ for such people to decide what is acceptable for the rest of society.”

If you look at the world, there are many forms of governance. Unfortunately, many so called human rights activists will take that the only acceptable form of governance to be democracy – and even that too, democracy as known to the west.

Firstly, let us look at the various forms of possible governance that so called human rights activists around the world see as “oppressive”. One example is communism as practised by Russia and China. My question is who are these activists to claim that this form of governance is oppression? What about Kingdoms, as in Saudi? What is wrong with that?

As a comparison, is the American Presidential Election system any more democratic? What “choice” do you really have, when there are effectively only 2 parties you can only vote? Is this really democracy?

However, the same activists who are quick to point out that the people of Russia or China have no choice, are dead silent that Americans are not too far off either. On the other hand, even third world countries have multiple parties you can choose from. Yet, America is seen as the champion of such human rights!

Secondly, and more importantly, there have been cases where the governments of certain lands have been democratically elected, yet when the US interferes and tries to remove them, these same human rights activists remain stone silent.

Iran has a democratically elected government. Yet, the US has been urging a regime change! Where are the protests of these human rights activists protesting against the US for trying to demolish a democratically elected government?

Another example is Hamas which was elected by the Palestinians. Israel and US don’t seem comfortable with this group. US and Israel have been aiding the Fatah backed party into power. Where are the protests of these human rights activists protesting against the US for trying to demolish a democratically elected government - Hamas?

It appears that Woon is right. Human rights HAS become a “religion” that breeds devotees who border on the fanatic. They will go round “demonising” parties that are not pro-US or pro-West. They set standards and expect others to follow those standards.

Thirdly, it appears that Human Rights Activists do pick and choose (as Woon alleges) what "democracy" should be. As an example, I cite China's Tianenmen Square Incident 1989 and Algeria's Elections 1991.

In 1989, when Chinese citizens called for democracy in China and were eventually physically mowed down by the military, activists were quick in condemning the massacre. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiananmen_Square_protests_of_1989

On the other hand, in 1991, when Algeria held DEMOCRATIC ELECTIONS, which saw an Islamic opposition party heading for a landslide victory, the ruling government stopped the elections, used the military and caused a massacre, Tianenmen style. No human rights activists protested. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Algerian_National_Assembly_elections,_1991

In both cases, the citizens called for democracy. However, in China, the people called for a democracy, US style. So the activists supported them. In Algeria, the people wanted democracy – Islamic (perhaps Iran) style. So the activists ignored them.

Woon is right about the selective process of these Human Rights Activists.

Yet another example is the China’s Tibet vs US occupation in Iraq - Activists have been quick to point out that China has been oppressing Tibet. The Olympic Torch protests bear testimony to that. Yet no protest of US treatment of innocent civilians (including torture)?

There are countless of such inconsistencies. The point is that Human Rights has now become a political tool, used by politicians to gain political leverage. Human Rights activists, who probably are none the wiser, are being used as pawns in this menacing game.

So all issues which fall in line with US terms, will get attention. That includes Tianenmen, Dalai Lama, etc. All issues which put US and its allies in bad light, like the oppression of Iraqis and Palestinians, are hidden under the carpet.


My Conclusion

I feel Woon is right about this selective process, where it has become some sort of fanatics’ movement. He sees the global picture where certain groups set their own rules, and expect others to follow those self-set rules. So he comments such. Although he did not name any parties, I see his point.

We also have groups in Singapore who think on a smaller scale. Like Chee being jailed. I do empathise Chee. However, Woon’s words must be seen in the global context. That’s because Human Rights is about global issues and not just Singapore’s.

My advice to activists in Singapore is that before you draw your gun, take a step backwards, study Woon’s words and reflect. He may be talking about someone else or something else in the first place.

In other words, you may have barked up the wrong tree.