Anybody disagree?
"As the furore over the #littleindiariot draws to a close, this author says that it is puzzling that civil society groups seem to be more concerned about the migrant workers’ interests than national interests. A rough translation has been included below.
==
Following the 8-Dec Little India Riot, Workfair Singapore, Maruah and TWC2 came to the fore to defend the rights of the migrant workers who were suspected of participating in the riot.
After the riot, the government announced the setting up of a Committee of Inquiry (COI) to investigate the cause of the riot. However, even before the COI could begin its investigation, Workfair Singapore requested that the cabinet refrain from commenting on the causes of the riot to ensure that the COI carries out the investigation in an open and independent manner. It also suggested that the COI publish its findings and evidence upon completing the investigation.
Workfair Singapore put forth a few suggestions, including:
1) the COI is to be provided with both verbal and written translations services so that it gets a chance to review all relevant evidence and hear the migrant workers’ voice;
2) the COI is to hold the hearing at a convenient public place and open the entire investigation process to the public, as well as to both local and overseas media;
3) the COI is to provide assistance to migrant workers who wish to be witnesses at the hearing and to ensure that the employers of these migrant workers will not prevent the workers from participating in the hearing.
Workfair Singapore, Maruah and TWC2 recently held a forum to call on the COI to look into the problems faced by migrant workers. They also call on the Ministry of Manpower (MOM) to look into the issue of migrant workers’ low wages and to improve legal and procedural issues to help the migrant workers. They also raised doubts about the legality of the repatriation of the 57 migrant workers.
The untiring effort by civil society groups to fight for the rights and interest of migrant workers is indeed commendable. They care for the migrant workers’ welfare and are also worried that those who are charged for rioting as well as those who have been repatriated may not get or have gotten their rightful legal protection. As civil society groups, it is only natural that they voice these concerns. However, I beg to differ.
First, they trivialised a very important and critical issue. This riot, a first by migrant workers, rocked and shocked Singaporeans, and made international headlines. What we should be concerned with is why these migrant workers, who are here to make a living, had the audacity to riot and attack the police and SCDF personnel, resulting in many of them getting hurt and hospitalised. At the same time, many vehicles and public properties were destroyed. The rioters disturbed not just our public order but also destroyed Singapore’s reputation of being an orderly state. In short, Singapore’s rights and interest suffered a tremendous damage as a result of this riot. Yet all the civil society groups could do was to express casual regrets for the riot.
To the majority of Singaporeans who are accustomed to living in an orderly society, even watching the riot on the television set was nightmarish. We could imagine how it was like on the ground – the danger faced by the policemen and SCDF people when the rioters surrounded and attacked them. In fact, after the dust had settled, a NSF policeman who helped out at the scene confessed that it occurred to him that he might not be able to see his family again.
The policemen and SCDF personnel were carrying out their routine duties. Who could have imagined that they would become the human targets of the rioters. They were very lucky. They could have lost their lives. Even then, it is our duty to censure these rioters. Yet, the actions of these civil society groups seem to suggest that they are more concerned with the rights and interest of the migrant workers than those of Singapore. Isn’t this strange?
Secondly, these civil society groups displayed sheer arrogance. Even before the COI had started its investigations, they had openly begun to tell the COI what to do. This shows their distrust in the independence and transparency of the COI. I certainly believe that the COI had its own terms of reference and knows what it needs to do. Who is Workfair Singapore to teach it what to do? What Workfair Singapore had demonstrated gave the impression that it is very conceited and presumptuous.
Thirdly, this is pure distrust for the law. These civil society groups seem so self-righteous and are seemingly standing on moral high grounds. They kept harping on the legality of the repatriation of the 57 migrant workers. Do they not know that migrant workers who come here to work are subject to the terms and conditions of their work permits as well as our immigration laws? If a democratically elected government does not even have these basic jurisdictions, how can it control and manage a million migrant workers?
Some have pointed out that it is normal for the government to repatriate workers who violate their terms and conditions of their work permits or immigration law. Over the past 3 years, on the average, every year, the government repatriates 13,000 migrant workers. Hence, it is not practical to have the court decide on the repatriation of migrant workers. To doubt the legality of the repatriation shows that these civil society groups only think about the rights and interest of the migrant workers and nothing else. This is indeed puzzling.
Lastly, immediately after the riot, these civil society groups booked a restaurant in Little India itself, to hold a forum to discuss about the riot and the rights and interests of the migrant workers. This act clearly showed their lack of sensitivity. When the police heard that such a forum would be held at the restaurant, they decided to check with the restaurant for fear that the forum might disrupt the law and order again. On realising the seriousness and gravity of the matter, the restaurant decided to cancel the booking and refund the booking fees. These civil society groups, in choosing to organise such a sensitive forum at such a sensitive location clearly showed that besides trying to raise the profile of the migrant workers, they are also trying very hard to raise their own profile.
Having civil society groups that are concerned with human rights and migrant workers’ rights may show that we have matured as a society. But on whether is it a good thing or not, depends largely on what these organisations do."
https://www.facebook.com/singaporeco...53037661406072
"As the furore over the #littleindiariot draws to a close, this author says that it is puzzling that civil society groups seem to be more concerned about the migrant workers’ interests than national interests. A rough translation has been included below.
==
Following the 8-Dec Little India Riot, Workfair Singapore, Maruah and TWC2 came to the fore to defend the rights of the migrant workers who were suspected of participating in the riot.
After the riot, the government announced the setting up of a Committee of Inquiry (COI) to investigate the cause of the riot. However, even before the COI could begin its investigation, Workfair Singapore requested that the cabinet refrain from commenting on the causes of the riot to ensure that the COI carries out the investigation in an open and independent manner. It also suggested that the COI publish its findings and evidence upon completing the investigation.
Workfair Singapore put forth a few suggestions, including:
1) the COI is to be provided with both verbal and written translations services so that it gets a chance to review all relevant evidence and hear the migrant workers’ voice;
2) the COI is to hold the hearing at a convenient public place and open the entire investigation process to the public, as well as to both local and overseas media;
3) the COI is to provide assistance to migrant workers who wish to be witnesses at the hearing and to ensure that the employers of these migrant workers will not prevent the workers from participating in the hearing.
Workfair Singapore, Maruah and TWC2 recently held a forum to call on the COI to look into the problems faced by migrant workers. They also call on the Ministry of Manpower (MOM) to look into the issue of migrant workers’ low wages and to improve legal and procedural issues to help the migrant workers. They also raised doubts about the legality of the repatriation of the 57 migrant workers.
The untiring effort by civil society groups to fight for the rights and interest of migrant workers is indeed commendable. They care for the migrant workers’ welfare and are also worried that those who are charged for rioting as well as those who have been repatriated may not get or have gotten their rightful legal protection. As civil society groups, it is only natural that they voice these concerns. However, I beg to differ.
First, they trivialised a very important and critical issue. This riot, a first by migrant workers, rocked and shocked Singaporeans, and made international headlines. What we should be concerned with is why these migrant workers, who are here to make a living, had the audacity to riot and attack the police and SCDF personnel, resulting in many of them getting hurt and hospitalised. At the same time, many vehicles and public properties were destroyed. The rioters disturbed not just our public order but also destroyed Singapore’s reputation of being an orderly state. In short, Singapore’s rights and interest suffered a tremendous damage as a result of this riot. Yet all the civil society groups could do was to express casual regrets for the riot.
To the majority of Singaporeans who are accustomed to living in an orderly society, even watching the riot on the television set was nightmarish. We could imagine how it was like on the ground – the danger faced by the policemen and SCDF people when the rioters surrounded and attacked them. In fact, after the dust had settled, a NSF policeman who helped out at the scene confessed that it occurred to him that he might not be able to see his family again.
The policemen and SCDF personnel were carrying out their routine duties. Who could have imagined that they would become the human targets of the rioters. They were very lucky. They could have lost their lives. Even then, it is our duty to censure these rioters. Yet, the actions of these civil society groups seem to suggest that they are more concerned with the rights and interest of the migrant workers than those of Singapore. Isn’t this strange?
Secondly, these civil society groups displayed sheer arrogance. Even before the COI had started its investigations, they had openly begun to tell the COI what to do. This shows their distrust in the independence and transparency of the COI. I certainly believe that the COI had its own terms of reference and knows what it needs to do. Who is Workfair Singapore to teach it what to do? What Workfair Singapore had demonstrated gave the impression that it is very conceited and presumptuous.
Thirdly, this is pure distrust for the law. These civil society groups seem so self-righteous and are seemingly standing on moral high grounds. They kept harping on the legality of the repatriation of the 57 migrant workers. Do they not know that migrant workers who come here to work are subject to the terms and conditions of their work permits as well as our immigration laws? If a democratically elected government does not even have these basic jurisdictions, how can it control and manage a million migrant workers?
Some have pointed out that it is normal for the government to repatriate workers who violate their terms and conditions of their work permits or immigration law. Over the past 3 years, on the average, every year, the government repatriates 13,000 migrant workers. Hence, it is not practical to have the court decide on the repatriation of migrant workers. To doubt the legality of the repatriation shows that these civil society groups only think about the rights and interest of the migrant workers and nothing else. This is indeed puzzling.
Lastly, immediately after the riot, these civil society groups booked a restaurant in Little India itself, to hold a forum to discuss about the riot and the rights and interests of the migrant workers. This act clearly showed their lack of sensitivity. When the police heard that such a forum would be held at the restaurant, they decided to check with the restaurant for fear that the forum might disrupt the law and order again. On realising the seriousness and gravity of the matter, the restaurant decided to cancel the booking and refund the booking fees. These civil society groups, in choosing to organise such a sensitive forum at such a sensitive location clearly showed that besides trying to raise the profile of the migrant workers, they are also trying very hard to raise their own profile.
Having civil society groups that are concerned with human rights and migrant workers’ rights may show that we have matured as a society. But on whether is it a good thing or not, depends largely on what these organisations do."
https://www.facebook.com/singaporeco...53037661406072
