SINGAPORE HUMAN RIGHTS REPORT 2002

1. Singapore: Introduction [General Situation]

2. Singapore: Social and Economic Rights of Malay/Muslims Community

3. Singapore: Freedom of Expression and Opinion

4. Singapore: Internal Security Detentions

5. Singapore: Migrant Workers

6. Singapore: Right to Life [Drug addicts and Death Penalty]

1. INTRODUCTION: General Situation

The People's Action Party (PAP) government is known for being intolerant of political opposition. Its pro-business policies, welcomes foreign investments, foreign talents and multinational companies feel secure in Singapore.

Unemployment increased in 2000 due to the continuing regional financial and economic crisis. About 97,500 Singaporeans were unemployed during the second quarter of 2000. The unemployment rate rose to 6.0% in the second quarter of 2000. Singapore’s economy saw no improvement in the third quarter of 2001. The government says foreign talent helps and continues to encourage foreign investments, hoping that this will help create jobs for Singaporeans as well as help achieve the higher economic growth.

Some Singaporeans want a “Singaporeans First” employment policy. This involves hiring foreigners only when there are no locals who are able to do the job, and retrenching foreign employees before locals. The ruling PAP government says it is wrong to think that every foreign worker takes away the jobs of Singaporean workers.

Rather, the downturn is caused by external factors, mainly by the slowdown of the US economy. Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong has urged Singaporean companies to cut pay rather than retrench workers. The government and the labor movement have been making efforts to create jobs for the retrenched, and the government has given top priority in seeking investments to create more jobs.

PAP has been in power since 1959. In the latest (3 November 2001) general elections, the PAP won more than 75% of the votes, capturing 82 of the 84 seats in Parliament. Before the elections, the government announced a US$6.2 billion economic package that will support the poor, elderly and less-educated people as well as increase the number of employed people.

There are no flagrant and gross violations of human rights in Singapore. There are several political prisoners detained under Internal Security Detention including 13 arrested for alleged "terrorist activities".

Cruel, inhuman and degrading punishment: - Caning remained mandatory for 30 crimes and is being extended even to undocumented migrant workers. - Death Penalty: At least 28 executions by hanging were reported mostly for drug-related offences thanks to Singapore’s use of the Death Penalty in 1999.

There are restrictions on free speech, peaceful assembly and association. The Speakers' Corner launched in september 2000 to allow space for expression of opinion is a positive signal in a state well known for its strict controls on political speech and regulated media.

At the speakers corner Singaporeans can speak without having to apply for Public Entertainment Licence but they may face defamation charges for libel.

Demonstrations or marches are not permitted at the avenue no dispalying of placards or slogan shouting without permits. Thus few speakers venture to speak at the corner and much less crowd is attracted.

The government opens one door but it closes other doors especially those potential communication tools like websites, emails and SMS - Short Messaging Services [handphones] are regulated.

2. Social and Economic: Singapore Malay/Muslims Community

The Malays form about 14 percent of Singapore’s population. The Malay population ranks in the bottom of most social indicators compared with Chinese, Indian and others. In 2000, they have lower average monthly household income of $1,717, only 2 percent attained university education, and had the highest numbers of drug arrests 1,575.

Singapore is a signatory of the Childrens’ Rights Convention (CRC) and that means the government is committed to making sure that all children receive an education. The governments school uniform policy bans tudung or headscarf for muslim girls. The muslim women are permitted to wear the head scarf in public and to work.

Recently, three primary school muslim girls were suspended from school for wearing the head scarf. They have no access to public education due to the ban on headscarf in public schools.

There are only six madrasahs/muslim religious school which provide both Islamic and secular education where they are free to wear head scarves and provide facilitaties for praying. The madrasah are not assigned with qualified teachers in English, Mathematics, Science and Information Technology.

The government is keen on persuading the muslims students to attend secular mainstream schools - but it bans headscarf! Is there discrimination in education for the muslim girls wearing scarf?

Reports indicate that drug addiction is disproportionately high among Malay males with lower education. Drug addiction will continue as long as the social conditions pushing it exists when these conditions are alleviated the demand for illicit drugs will surely drop. Society should also give the addicts an opportunity to integrate and provide access to decent jobs. Drug addicts are rejected by most potential employers.

The Malays were the native, indigenous people, the first people of Singapore. Today, their native village are demolished for urban development and are housed in high-rise public housing. Some feel displaced as their village community is no more and the social security network they had as a cohesive community is gone.

Many are unable to cope with school pressure and dropout early from school; others are unable to deal with work pressure and the high cost of living. Thus, a disproportionate number of Malays are in the lower income bracket and live in comparative poverty. Their self-esteem is low that leads to more social problems including drug consumption, drunkenness and unemployment.

Drug traffickers, those in possession of drugs, face the mandatory death penalty and many are regulars at drug rehabilitation centre or in detention often for drunkenness and consuming drugs.

The Malay’s civil society’s political participation is low. There is a feeling of being marginalized and becoming voiceless. Those who have benefited from the system will not voice the feelings of the marginalized, its not politically correct, as it will endanger their privilege position and income they have gain.

Who will truely represent this marginalised, poor and voiceless people?

RECOMMENDATIONS:

1. We are encouraged that the government has not closed the “head scarf” issue for discussion and possibly for the head scarf to be allowed in the future.

2. The right to education is more important for those 3 suspended girls. The government should continue to encourage the parents to let their daughters continue with their education. A flexible approached could be for the school principles to make “special” exemption on individual cases. Moreover, Muslims girls from secondary onwards who wish to wear the “head scarf” should be given permission to do so.

3. Last October a petition signed by over 3,300 Singaporeans - both Muslims and non Muslims, was submitted to Prime Minister and the Presidential Council for Minority Rights to the care of Mr Abdullah Tarmugi, Minister for Community Developments and Sports and Minister in charge of Muslim Affairs. The Presidential Council was set up for the protection of Minority Rights. The Council should be convened to address the issue of headscarf in schools.

4. Singapore is a signatory of the Childrens’ Rights Convention (CRC) and that means we are committed to making sure that all children receive an education. We believe the government will make the necessary arrangements for the girls to receive an education. Of course, we too hope that the parents will make the best choice for their daughters but if they do not, then the state has an obligation to make sure that the girls are receiving lessons of a reasonable standard.

5. We also urge the government to set up a committee with the aim of resolving the problems of the Malay/Muslim community related issues including the “head scarf” issue. Article 15(1) of the constitution, states "Every person has the right to profess and practice his religion and to propagate it."

3. Singapore: Freedom of Expression and Opinion

The denial of the fundamental freedom of expression is a cause for serious concern. Singapore has restricted its citizens political rights for a long time, in the pretext that progress and stability is achieved through social control - at the cost of sacrificing the enjoyment of basic human rights such as freedoms of opinion and expression, assembly and association. Now that Singapore has achieved economic progress, it should allow its people to enjoy more freedoms especially their right to participate in the political life of the nation.

Restrictions on free speech, peaceful assembly and association

The Speakers' Corner launched in september 2000 to allow space for expression of opinion is a positive signal in a state well known for its strict controls on political speech and regulated media. At the speakers corner Singaporeans can speak without having to apply for Public Entertainment Licence but they may face defamation charges for libel. Demonstrations or marches are not permitted at the avenue no dispalying of placards or slogan shouting without permits. Thus few speakers venture to speak at the corner and much less crowd is attracted.

The government opens one door but it closes other doors especially on those which have the potential for mass communication like broadcasting, websites, emails and even SMS - Short Messaging Services [handphones] are regulated.

19 April 2001, Broadcasting Authority Act 1994 adds Section 42, which rules that any foreign broadcasting service "engaging in the domestic politics of Singapore" and requires prior approval from the government.. The regulations permits the suspension and banning of local retransmission of foreign broadcasts. Fines of up to Singapore $100,000 may be levied on those found guilty.

17 October 2001, the Parliamentary Elections [Elections Advertising] Regulations 2001 came into effect. The new regulations restricted contents on website during election. The regulations enable fines not exceeding $1,000 or imprisonment not exceeding 12 months or both for offenders. The authorities requested Sintercom website, launched in 1996, to register as a political website. The owners prefer to close-down the website fearing restriction on the content.

November 2001:
Robert Ho Chong, a former journalist, was charged and send to a mental institution.
19 October 2001 he had email the article, Break the Law and get away with it, like PAP, to an online newsgroup, soc.culture.singapore. He had send the article to a website requesting voters in the 3rd November 2001 General Election (GE) to break polling rules.

Under Singapore laws offenders could been jailed to a maximum of three years and fined for writing, printing, possesing, posting, distributing any article that may cause violence or disobedience to the law or breach of peace. December 2001 He was acquitted from charges after being found mentally ill.

RECOMMENDATIONS:

1. The Commission should urge Singapore to initiate the promotion and protection of human rights so that such attempts to restrict fundamental freedoms will not be allowed to happen The government needs to allow its citizens to exercise their rights, and encourage them to exercise their rights.

2. There is a serious need for commitment by political leaders to freedoms and practices that will release the creative energies of peoples. Singapore has reach the development stage when economic and political rights should go hand in hand - they cannot be separated anymore! Singapore should be increasingly open to the participation of civil society.

3. Without genuine political commitment and respect for human rights from the government any declaration and convenant including the UDHR is just another paper!

4. The Singapore government needs to be persuade that human rights is not an obstacle for development and economic growth which delivers a better life to peoples. In fact, respect for human rights will improve the quality of life enjoyed by Singaporeans. Economic growth should strengthen fundamental rights of the peoples and should not be used to weaken respect for human rights. Economic progress can no longer legitimize suppression and coercion even if the government argued that national security, social stability and public order are necessary for development.

5. Civil society organizations like Think Centre should be given the space to promote and protect human rights; especially the right to opinion and expression, peaceful assembly and association, and to monitor fundamental human rights including how development and economic growth benefits the person, the family and the community.

6. More effort is required to sensitize Singaporeans to the promotion and protection of human rights especially freedom of expression, peaceful assembly and association. It is important to recognize that a dissenter or a person who expresses the minority views is a citizen with equal rights. When there are doubts we should resolve the issue in favor of expression rather then suppression.

4. Singapore: Internal Security Detention

The Internal Security Act had been used against suspected Communist, Marxist but the latest arrest is against suspected terrorist.

The Criminal Law (Temporary Provisions) Act has been used against suspected organized crime, secret societies, and drug traffickers; and at time to prevent suspected espionage. There are provisions for arrest without warrant under the Internal Security Act (ISA), the Criminal Law (Temporary Provisions) Act (CLA), the Misuse of Drugs Act (MDA), and the Undesirable Publications Act (UPA). Moreover, anyone detained under the ISA or CLA are not entitled to a public trial and the proceedings of the advisory board under the ISA and CLA are not public.

Those who thought there is no need for ISA as the purpose of the act was to fight communism and armed insurgence are in for a surprised! There is now a suspected threat from suspected “terrorist” who are claiming to be anti-American and anti-capitalist.

Those who challenge the American interest and values of capitalism are suspected and looked upon as potential “terrorist” especially after the September 11 incident. Imagine that these suspected terrorist are practising muslims who are linked to the Al-Qaeda network!

ISA Detainees

Between 9 to 20 December 2001, the government detained 15 people under the Internal Security Act for alleged terrorists activities and links.

13 of them have been served with Orders of Detention for two years under Section 8(1)(a) on 6th Jan 2002 and 2 released on restriction orders.

The 13 detained under ISA for 2 years are:

1. Haji Ibrahim b Haji Maidin, 51, condominium manager;
2. Mohamad Anuar bin Margono, 31, driver;
3. Mohamed Khalim bin Jaffar, 39, printer;
4. Ja’afar bin Mistooki, 40, despatch driver;
5. Faiz bin Abu Bakar Bafana, 39, businessman;
6. Fathi Abu Bakar Bafana, 36, businessman;
7. Mohamed Ellias s/o Mohamed Khan, 29, manager;
8. Mohamed Nazir bin Mohmmed Uthman, 27, ship traffic assistant;
9. Adnan bin Musa, 36, technician;
10. Halim bin Hussain, 41, supervisor;
11. Hashim bin Abas, 40, service engineer;
12. Andrew Gerard @ Ali Ridhaa bin Abdullah, 34, technician
13. Othman bin Mohamed, 42, supervisor

Two persons released on Restriction Orders, on 6 Jan 2002:
1. Faizal Khan bin Gulam Sarwar, 34,
2. Mohd Agus bin Ahmad Selani, 34

The Groups alleged activities:

The government press statement reports that 8 of detained have gone to Afghanistan for training in Al-Qaeda camps. 6 of the detainees had completed full-time National Service in the Singapore Armed Forces and were reservists.

The report indicates that the 13 detainees are members of “Jemaah Islamiyah” (JI or Islamic group). The JI Singapore had links with groups in Malaysia and Indonesia. It appears the JI group is ideologically anti-American and anti-capitalist.

The JI groups are alleged to have planned attacks:

* First, its alleged they plan to attack a regular shuttle bus transporting US military personnel between Sembawang Wharf and the Yishun MRT Station.

* Second, its alleged they plan to attack US naval vessels between Changi and Pulau Tekong.

* Third, they had a list of 200 US companies and its alleged they plan to attack 3 companies.

* They had also allegedly planed to attack American aircraft at Paya Lebar Airbase.

* Its alleged, in September -October 2001, the JI group was approached by 2 foreigners to bomb targets like US Embassy, the Australian High Commission, the British High Commission, the Israeli Embassy, commercial buildings where thereare American companies and also the MINDEF Complex at Bukit Gombak.

* Its also alleged they intend to procure 17 tonnes of ammonium nitrate for making truck bombs.

If the above allegations are true, is it an indication of opposition to the presence of the US army personnel in Singapore?

Meanwhile, the US government which had in the past criticised and condemned Singapore for using the Internal Security Act (ISA), citing violation of human rights and detention without trial - is now thankful and praise the Singapore governments use of ISA to get rid of the suspected threat to its army personnel and property.

Did the detainees confess?

Former ISA detainees had complainted of being subjected to ill-treatment while under interrogation by officials of the Internal Security Department.

In the last, major ISA detention conducted in 1987, AI and UN Human Rights Commission had reported the following:

* During their first week in detention, detainees were subjected to round-the-clock interrogation in an overcooled room and, at times, physically abused.

* At the end of the week, detainees may begin to write a self-incriminating statement on all their political affiliations, as well as information implicating other people,

* Detainees were threatened with indefinite detention unless they made a televised “confession.”

The “confession” was rehearsed and then broadcast by authorities on television in an attempt to justify the arrests and imprisonment without trial.

No public trial under ISA

There is no right to a public trial under the Internal Security Act (ISA).

The ISA permits detention without charge or trial for an unlimited number of two-year periods. .The 1989 constitutional amendment prohibits judicial review of the substantive grounds of detentions under the ISA and anti-subversion laws, and bars the judiciary from reviewing the constitutionality of such laws.

These case will not be brought to the Singapore court that have received worldwide praise for its administration of justice.

Detainees should have the opportunity to voice out in an open court, and the Court should decide if they are guilty or otherwise. The final verdict should be delivered by the presiding judge after hearing both sides of arguments.

But under the ISA, these detainees have been denied their right to an open and fair trial, the right to be presumed innocent before trial and the right to legal representation to defend themselves.

One of the most basic of human rights is freedom from arbitrary arrest, detention or exile. This right is declared in Article 9 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights as well as Article 9 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

White Paper on Detentions

The government should release a white paper giving a comprehensive account of the ISA arrest.

This will promote more public awareness and understanding of the security situation and the condition of the detainees.

Apart from being an important national security issue, the detentions are also a human rights issue.

Human beings are detained against their will. The white paper should explain as much as possible and provide information on the detainees activities. What is the offence they committed, and why they acted in this manner.

Are their lawyers allowed to visit them? How is their prison condition and their health?

The 13 detainees are being held at Whitley Detention Centre. According to reports, the families and lawyers of the 13 detainees are allowed to visit them regularly and bring them books to read.

A Board of Inspection composed of volunteers from community and civic groups visit the detainees to review their well-being. Several Muslim groups are also providing support and financial help to the families.

Even prisoners of war (POWs) are entitled to protection under the Geneva Conventions. Its important to note that no detainee -even if suspected of war crimes such as the murder of civilians - may be subjected to torture, corporal punishment, or humiliating or degrading treatment. Even if captured fighters are tried for crimes, the trials must satisfy certain basic fair trial guarantees.

So its essential that the ISA detainees are given the due respect and protection.

RECOMMENDATIONS

1. Its important to encourage the government to produce the “white paper” not only with details of the alleged activities, but also with precise details of the conditions -physical and mental - after detention if possible with medical reports. Its important that Red Cross or another mutually acceptable NGO’s continue to visit the detainees beside visits by relatives and lawyers.

2. Singaporeans and others outside should be informed of the details and the evidence revealed for examination. Singapore citizens as well as officers must handle matters in a firm but humane manner - keeping in mind the constitutions - fundamental freedoms, and the law!

3. It would have been better if these suspected “terrorist” were charged under Criminal Law Act [Temporary Provision} and sentenced after a fair trial.

In reality, these men only dream of action plans but did not executive their plans.

Are there enough evidence to prosecute them in a court of law? Are they arrested based only on suspiciion?.,p>

They dream and express their fantasy with words and drawings, maybe egged on from their emotional baggages.

Somehow they had sufficient common senses not to implement their dreams.

Even if they had contact with friends in Pakistan or the Afganistan they will have told this men not to do any dangerous activities! As it will not benefit anyone - including themselves!

Every National Service men knows its one thing to play “military games and training” but another to go to real battle.

4. Singapore needs to assess the situation and remove any social, economic or cultural factors that may have influence them. This need a political leadership with courage to provide avenues for constructive social dialogues to happen. The government and citizens need to work towards a meaningful and long term solution to provide social security and equal opportunity to all in Singapore.

5. One of the most basic of human rights is freedom from arbitrary arrest, detention or exile. This right is declared in Article 9 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights as well as Article 9 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

The Internal Security Act [ISA] has become a permanent part of our society. If the ISA is to remain, it should be part of an emergency legislation.

The ISA should be applied under a State of Emergency and approved by the parliament.

Preventive detentions under ISA is now apply even in times where there is no emergency or threat to the security of the state.

To allow the ISA to continue in a democracy like ours is not encouraging for citizens to participate!

6. The government maybe concern that promotion of human rights will lead to calls for the state to review laws and policies to remove all discriminatory policies and practices.

The government could be worried about “losing face” or the consequent lost of authority, as a result of any changes or amendments to laws and policies.

The governments needs to be persuaded that such changes will improve the quality of life; it empowers, builds trust and confidence for the citizens to participate in politics.

Moreover, such a transparent process will encourage the citizens to participate in social dialogue and improve the existing system.

7. The government should ratify two international legal instruments, the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

The two Covenants and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights define human rights and fundamental liberties.

By ratifying the Covenants, the government of Singapore will accept the obligation to give the rights proclaimed in the Covenants the force of law.

Moreover, by ratifying the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the government undertakes to submit periodic reports to the United Nations Human Rights Committee on the measures they have taken to give effect to the rights set out in the Covenant and the progress made to those rights.

The country also opens itself to complaints by any member state which has ratified the Covenant should there be any failings.

5. SINGAPORE: Migrant Workers Situation

There are 612,000 foreign workers in Singapore, which compose 29.2% of the 2.2 million total labor force. The figure includes 120,000 Filipinos and 62,000 Thais.

Foreign Domestic Workers (FDWs): Singapore currently employs about 140,000 FDWs, about 80,000 from the Philippines and the rest from Indonesia, Sri Lanka, Burma (Myanmar) and Thailand. About one in every eight households (12.5%) has a FDW.

FDWs earn an average of S$330 (US$165) a month. Labor conditions for Filipino DWs are generally better than those of other nationalities. They are often paid higher than their Indonesian counterparts. Employment agencies say this is because Filipinos speak more English. The Philippine government had negotiated a deal with employment agencies in Singapore to permit most Filipinos to have their Sundays off.

Employers keep FDWs’ passports to prevent them from running away.
> Some FDWs have no days off and are prohibited from leaving their employers’ homes.

There have been recent media reports about women migrants who have been beaten or raped by their employers; others have fallen to their deaths while washing windows in high-rise apartments.

In 1999, eight FDWs fell from the windows, six of whom died. Between January to June 2001, at least three more FDWs died in a similar way.
According to the Straits Times, 27 FDWs have died from such falls since 1996. Singapore’s Ministry of Manpower says 36 FDWs have suffered fatal falls since 1999, including 10 suicides.

The Indonesian government puts the number of those who died from such falls at 43; an Indonesian Embassy spokesman said that 12 Indonesian DWs have died in falls in the period of January to July 2001. The employers of the killed FDWs were investigated, but none have been given police warnings.

Between January and June 2001, about 2,600 foreign workers went to the Ministry of Manpower (MOM) to report that their employers had not paid their salaries or overtime pay, or had made unauthorized deductions from their wages. The actual number of FDWs who are mistreated may be bigger as the majority of mistreated FDWs often do not know where to turn to for protection although abuse against FDWs is a punishable offense.

Newspapers have reported that in the period of 1999 to 2000, at least four men were jailed, some even caned, for molesting their FDWs. At least the same number were also accused, but acquitted, in the same period.

Many FDWs have also run away from inhumane working conditions or other reasons. In 2000, a total of 208 FDWs went missing, but less than 100 were found.

In 1999, the number of FDWs who went missing was 268.

In Singapore, the employer who hire foreign workers from non-traditional sources, including FDWs, must pay a security bond of S$5,000; they forfeit this if their FDW runs away or if the employers fail to repatriate the worker after his or her work permit is cancelled.

FDWs are required to take a pregnancy test every few months and are deported if the test is positive.

In July 2001, the Indonesian government temporarily banned its citizens from going to work in Singapore as laborers, saying more protections were needed. However, the ban was not enforced and is no longer in place.

Nurses:

Nurses also face severe working conditions with little or no negotiating power with their agents or employers. Migrant advocates made the following exposé, for instance, on ECON Nursing Home Services:

- The company provides qualified Filipinos and Sri Lankans as nursing aides;

- The company issues an employment contract to Filipinos stipulating a monthly wage of S$450. However, upon arrival in Singapore, the ECON Nursing Home issues a new contract which only offers a monthly salary of S$400;

- When the nursing aides work overtime or on rest-days, the cost of food and accommodations are deducted from their salaries;

- They practically work 12 hours daily for 30 days, with only a one-day rest for the first year.

- If the workers refuse to sign the new contract, then they are forced to return to the Philippines, at their own expense. But the Filipinos have no cash on hand to pay the air-ticket home.

Moreover, they are already in debt to the agents in the Philippines (for placement and processing fees to get the job). They are practically trapped by the agency and the employer.

- In its terms of employment, ECON Nursing Home states that the workers will have to pay the company S$1,000 in liquidated damages if the workers leave the company before completing the two-year contract. The worker will also be required to pay for the airfare to return to her/his country of origin.

It is obvious that this agency exploits the migrants’ vulnerable position. Given the reality that they can’t afford the air ticket to return home, most of the migrants are forced to accept the new terms of employment upon arrival in Singapore. This is a case of “contract substitution.”

Construction workers:

There are some 200,000 foreign construction workers in Singapore, majority of whom are unskilled. The number of accidents at the work sites involving unskilled workers have increased in recent years. In the first nine months of 1999, for example, there were 36 such accidents resulting in 39 deaths.

In a crackdown on accidents at the work sites, the government announced that the building contractors with poor safety record would be barred from employing or renewing the work permits of foreign workers, effective from 1 April 2000.

Undocumented migrant workers:

In the first 11 months of 2000, 15,407 undocumented migrants and overstayers were caught, down from 17,000 in 1999 and 23,000 in 1998.

According to the Manpower Ministry, 1,407 undocumented migrants from the food service sector were arrested in the first six months of 2001.

They were mainly working as food servers, stall assistants, general workers and cleaners at food outlets. Those employing the undocumented migrant workers may face a jail term of up to two years and may be fined up to S$6,000.

If the offender is found to have employed more than five ‘immigration offenders’ he or she will be caned in addition to the jail term and the fine.

Some undocumented migrants, most of whom enter Singapore as tourists or students, end up working as hostesses in pubs and karaoke lounges. In 2000, at least 44 such undocumented workers were arrested (as at August 19). The arrested workers were from China, Malaysia and the Philippines.

Responses:

Singapore remains to be one of the more difficult countries for human rights and migrant advocacy organizations to operate. Until now, there are only some non-political organizations whose work mainly involve providing welfare services and vocational trainings. The government continues to implement its discriminatory policies against foreign workers , despite public acknowledgment of the importance of foreign workers in the island-state.

The Singapore government is also concern for the plight of the FDW's.

In April 1998, the parliament passed a Bill increasing the penalties for abusive employers. More protection is provided for maids under Section 73 of the Penal code which increase the maximum penalties for abusive employers.

Moreover, convicted employers and their spouses are not allowed to hire maids. Since mid-1999, the Ministry of Manpower continues to publish and distribute information kits to educate employers on good working relationship between employer and employee. Maybe due to the heavy penalties maid abuse is reduced from the peak in 1997 of convicted employers 157; 89 in 1998; 82 in 1999; 87 in 2000 and 49 cases from January to July 2001.

RECOMMENDATIONS

1. To prevent the violations of the human rights of migrants its essential to inform potential migrants of migration policies and their rights and duties.

2. Singapore and sending countries should be persuaded to ratify the 1990 UN Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families.

3. The labour law should protect all workers without discrimination including foreign domestic workers and permitted to organised and join unions and/ or associations to negotiate collective agreements

4. Both the sending and receiving countries of migrant workers should establish agreed minimum standards on migrant rights and welfare eg minimum wage, hours of work, rest days, medical insurance, work safety, re-trainings, regulation of recruitment agencies, remove recruitment fees or set a minimum fee policy etc.

5. Foreign prisoners either detained for criminal actvities or overstaying must be humanely treated and provided necessary counselling.

6. The relevant government representative or their embassy staff should visit the detainees and on their release from detention, where necessary, share the cost with local authorities to transport them home.

Right to Life: Drug Addicts and Death Penalty

In late 1970s, there were about 20,000 heroin addicts and by 1989 Reduced to around 9,000 addicts.

In 1995, there were 7,700 drug addicts in rehabilitation centres and 80% of the newly registered addicts were young citizens under the age of 30. Drug addiction is common among the poor and young school dropouts.

In 1996, after treatment relapse rates among drug addicts remained above 70 percent.
In 1997, those arrested for drug offenses numbered 4750.

Reports indicate that drug addiction is disproportionately high among poor, unemployed, Malay males with low education‘. Drug addiction continues to be a serious problem among the poor and low educated in Singapore despite harsh anti-drugs laws.

· Persistent drug addicts who have been admitted more than twice to a drugs rehabilitation centre are treated as criminals and may be imprisoned for up to 13 years and caned.

· The death penalty is mandatory for anyone, over the age of 18, found in possession of more than 15 grams of heroin, 30 grams of morphine or cocaine, or 500 grams of cannabis. It is presumed to be trafficking in drug, unless the contrary can be proved.

Drug addiction will continue as long as the social conditions pushing it exists when these conditions are alleviated the demand for illicit drugs will surely drop.

Society should give the addicts an opportunity to integrate and provide access to decent jobs.

Society is, partly, responsible for this unhealthy trend! But it seems drug abusers, those in possession of drugs and minor traffickers, are put to death or imprisoned while those behind the crime escape.

Drug addiction: Rational and Humane approach

Statistics indicate that out of 340 people executed between 1991 and 2000, 247 had been convicted of drug trafficking. Drug addiction is disproportionately high among young people coming from broken families, the poor and the unemployed with low education - the excluded people of Singapore.

Many of those convicted for drug offense and face death penalty are from these social background. We may still wish to turn the face the other way but the death penalty remains with human mistakes and discrimination. This inhumane practice remains a part of our justice system.

The mandatory death sentence must be removed. The laws have to be changed to permit judicial discretion and fairness for drug cases.

Under the current practices judges are helpless to do anything about the a disproportional number drug addicts who are young school drop-outs, poor and broken family background. They face heavy sentencing and death.

At the whim of an overzealous CNB officer or the prosecutor, a drug addict or a “runner” could be serving long term prison sentences or sentence to death for not volunteering to supply information against other suspects.

Drug addicts are used and abused by both the traffickers and the police. The police do target the drug addicts as incidence of crime is higher among addicts.

Death Penalty

A more rational approach will save more lives. A change in approach to The drug problem is needed. We should remove mandatory capital punishment for simple possession of drugs.

The death penalty violates the right to life and the right not to be subjected to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment, as proclaimed in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

The death penalty is an inherently unjust and arbitrary punishment, however heinous the crime for which it is inflicted. It is more likely to be imposed on those who are poorer, less educated and more vulnerable than average. Where miscarriages of justice have occurred and wrongly convicted and executed - the death sentence is too late for an appeal.

Every punishment, which does not arise from absolute neccessity, is tyrannical says Montesquieu.

ZULFIKAR BIN MUSTAFFAH:

The conviction of this Zulfikar was founded upon a presumption. A presumption is something that the law says you have got to presume, you have got to accept unless the accused is able to rebut that presumption, is able to disprove it.

Presumptions therefore reverse the burden of proof in criminal cases. In criminal law, the presumption is that an accused person is deemed to be innocent until he is proved guilty beyond any reasonable doubt. The law did not require the accused to have to prove his innocence. But this is somewhat eroded now by the presumptions that had been built in and the Misuse of Drugs Act abounds in presumptions.

The basic assumption in all cases of a defendant being presumed innocent until proven guilty has certainly failed to be applied in this case. Based upon informant’s information, from the time of arrest, Zulfikar bin Mustaffah appears to have been presumed guilty and what evidence there was, has subsequently been presented in a way only to support the guilty assumption.

The presumption of innocence is clearly weakened when in such cases the possession of drugs even without the knowledge of the carrier is taken as evidential proof of trafficking. This clearly prejudices any possible assumption of innocence. Furthermore, it is extremely unusual in such a capital case that no evidence other than the possession was in existence or brought forward to support the charge of trafficking in this case.

The outcome of the case was severely effected by the practice of making it impossible to use or examine as evidence information from the informant, which in this case was pivotal to the final decision.

The CNB’s practice of protection of the identity of the informer made it impossible to call for the informers "evidence statement".

The whole case therefore was based purely on an assumption and the passing of the death penalty likewise is based on no more than the same assumption without the full examination of all available evidence.

Surely it is normally the case that the party sending or arranging to send a package is regarded as the distributor not the postman who delivers the package.

The possibility that Zulfikar is innocent and did not have knowledge of a packets contents cannot be ruled out.

The man known as “Ah Boy” who was known, and which has been acknowledged by all parties, to have arranged for the bag to be delivered by Zulfikar could not be produced in court, as his whereabouts were not known.

Justice is not done when Zulfikar a drug abuser was executed, while those who mastermind the crime of trafficking evade arrest and punishment.

Zulfikar as a persistent drug addict could have suffered other appropriate punishments, as the law permits, surely not the death penalty.

Think Centre humbly suggests we should not put to death anyone on presumption. [ for a full report on this case read visit the website
- Raised in Parliament on 11th July 2001.

Source:www.gov.sg/parliament/ and visit the Think centre website: www.thinkcentre.org
go to click column Human Rights Watch, go to sub-section on Death Penalty click]

Recommendations:

· All evidence should be properly disclosed in capital cases - no withholding of evidence - which can lead to wrongful convictions.

· All detainees should get a fair look at evidence against them to review and rebut the evidence in the course of due process.

· No secret evidence from informers should be used against detainees. The CNB and police should end the practice of using undisclosed evidence against the addicts.

· There is a strong need to challenge evidence based on suggestive interviews, expose biased police investigation, and track down evidence withheld by the prosecution.

. The mandatory death sentence must be removed.

· Abolish death penalty in all circumstances.

Sources and Relevant Links:

Death Penalty