Young Democrat, Mr Charles Tan, recently completed his internship at the European Parliament in Brussels, Belgium. He was there from 29 March - 22 April 2005 under a programme jointly supported by the Council of Asian Liberals and Democrats (CALD) and the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats of Europe (ALDE). The SDP is a member of CALD. Below is the report of Mr Tan.

Overview

I was assigned to the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs of the European Parliament (EP) during my internship. The flexibility of the program, however, allowed me to follow other committees as well. I attended ALDE Group meetings, press conferences, public hearings and plenary session in Strasbourg. The issues raised on these meetings varied widely from human rights concerns including the discrimination that the ethnic minority the Romas in Europe are subjected to, torture and imprisonment of activists in Syria to pan-EU subjects such as working time and controversy on the ascension of Bulgaria and Romania to the body.

April is an exciting month in the EP. Besides the debates on the ascension of Bulgaria and Romania to EU, France and Netherlands will be holding national referendums on the new EU constitution in the coming months. The new EU constitution has however been a controversial issue within the parliament as it must be ratified by all 25 member states and various political groups within the Parliament held different opinions on it.

During my stay, besides learning on the rules of procedures of the Parliament and European politics, I took the opportunity to research on EUs position on human rights, and agreements with third countries. I talked to immediate working colleagues about the repressive political situation in Singapore.

I believe I gained a better, albeit perhaps limited, understanding of the workings of EP, which in my opinion, is a democratic system involving checks, balances and lots of effort and work on the part of the committees consisting of Members of EP, assistants and administrators. Excruciating debates undergoing various readings on reports gave rise to extreme attention to details. Compromises are made at times. However, I believe this is an indication of the democratic making process in the Parliament which should be cherished. This is essential, given, the European Union is such a huge organization, and that such a process prevents it from degenerating into a bureaucratic white elephant.

Working with the ALDE as a stagiaire strengthened my belief as a liberal. This is the conviction that an individual should be afforded maximum freedom unless the action or views hurt others; the freedom and rights in any sphere whether political, economic or otherwise; of which comes along with personal responsibility. More importantly, liberals practise tolerance, a readiness to accept views or actions that one disagrees or disapproves, which is a fundamental principle in any liberal democracy.

Observations and Impressions

European Parliament A Democratic Institution with global influence

Of most interest to me are the various committee, delegation meetings and hearings in which debates focusing on human rights issues and external relations with third countries takes centre stage.

The Southeast Asia Delegation for relations with the countries of Southeast Asia and the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) meeting is of most interest to me as Singapore is part of ASEAN. From the meeting, I am updated of the political and human rights situation in Burma/Myanmar as well as EU ASEAN relationship, which is hampered by the dictatorship regime assuming the chair in 2006.

I also attended the Delegation for relations with the countries of South Asia and the South Asia Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC) in which H.E. Syed Maudud Ali, Ambassador of Bangladesh to the EU expressed his views on the urgent resolutions that European Parliament passed on his country.

In attending these meetings, I am aware that the EP, sensitive to diplomatic relations with third countries, are able, some of the time, apply some form of international pressure on various nation states that are questionable in their human rights records. The European Union is aware that solely focusing on economic exchange with states that seriously violates human rights, is a direct confrontation to the values of which it is based on.

Currently, human rights outside the European Union are spelt out in the European Initiative for Democracy and Human Rights. EU also spells out its roles on combating death penalty, torture, racism, war crime, genocide, electoral observation and assistance, indigenious peoples rights, and childrens rights with these third countries.

I believe that as the European Union gets stronger and more unified, hopefully with the Constitution entering into force, more can be done to alleviate or reduce the human rights abuses that still abounds in many parts of the world ravaged by dictatorial and authoritarian regimes, torture, poverty, corruption, war, terrorism and natural calamities.

Is there a Liberal Approach to Solving Global Problems?

Liberals, unlike other political beliefs in the spectrum, do not hold on to a certain fixed ideology though they are governed by a few main principles which are: freedom of the individual and responsibility, human rights and the rule of law, equality of opportunities and belief in the effectiveness of the market economy to advance development and alleviate poverty.

Because of liberalism being a non-conformist political ideology; when liberals get together to discuss a single problem, they may turn out to possess different opinions or solutions.

This is what I witness in the intra-liberal group meetings when MEPs debate on certain issues.

A good example is the group meeting debating on the ascension of Romania and Bulgaria to EU during the Strasbourg sessions. Different members of parliament voiced out their concerns with regards to the state of affairs in both countries despite a majority consensus.

Suggestions for Future Interns

The internship program is an enriching and educational experience that should be continued. I would suggest the following for future interns and ALDE/CALD/FNF administrators of the programme:

. Interns prior to their arrival should read up on the EP from its official website: http://www.europarl.ep.ec to better understand its organizational structures, rules of procedures, working documents and activities.

. Prior to their arrival, the program could perhaps require the intern submit a short written report on their political knowledge and background, their perception on European politics, and what they hope to achieve during the internship. This report can be used as an indicator for evaluating the fruitfulness of the program.

. The current system is such that an intern is assigned to following a particular committee; but that flexibility is given such that he or she is allowed to follow others as well. I hope the versatility of this program continues.

. Besides assigning interns to committees, he or she can perhaps be assigned to an MEP within the group. The purpose is to allow the interns to get a better grasp of the EP through the work of an individual MEP.

. Since the group is comprised of various European nationalities, an intern could perhaps be assigned to one volunteer who has offered to be a "friendly mentor". The mentor will be required to help the intern ease into his daily activities in the parliament, answer some of his or her questions outside the Parliament and in his or her own country. Thus, a form of cultural and political exchange can take place.

. A short presentation or project is required of the intern towards the end of the program. The topic and format of the presentation or project should be opened to the discretion and agreement of the intern and the administration. The purpose of the presentation or project is to allow the intern to put to use what he or she has learnt or feels strongly about. E.g. doing a survey on the groups perception of the country of which the stagiaire came from.

. I suggest the intern keeps a daily journal to keep track of his or her activities which may be useful for writing the intern report.

Annex

Repression in Singapore

Singapore is a modern and cosmopolitan city physically sprawling with shopping malls and skyscrapers. To the untrained eye, it is almost a paradise come true. Clean pavements, low crime rates, chewing gum ban and a heavy fine if one is caught littering on the streets.

The majority of the population is educated of whom many are able to communicate in English and their mother tongue; making the country an ideal business and travel centre within the region.

Yet, Singapore is not the utopia it claims to be. It is an authoritarian state that has been governed by a one party Peoples Party Action (PAP) government since independence. While the ruling party claims that it returns to power due to popularity, the situation is however not as simple as it seems. It is responsible for influencing, controlling and repressing various robust actors of the civil society and the Opposition which has virtually make it impossible for the citizens to change their government democratically through the ballot box.

It is a country where open dissent is frowned upon. Repressive laws curb freedom of assembly, speech and association. The compliant press has been made the mouthpiece of the government through the years; and the Damocles sword of the internal security act and numerous lawsuits that the government has filed on its critics has cowed any form of viable opposition into submission. As such, citizens develop a sense of fear and apathy with regards to politics.

Singapores political and social climate needs the monitoring of the international community to break through its current bleak state. This is important since the government is sensitive to external pressures in which it tries to maintain close trade relations with.

Due to my concern for the human rights issues and rule of law in Singapore, I drafted a few parliamentary questions which I hope the group could use during Question Time when the Parliament is in session.

Parliamentary Questions

Question 1:

According to an Amnesty International Report released on 15 January 2004, entitled: Singapore, The Death Penalty: A hidden toll of executions; more than 400 prisoners have been hanged in Singapore since 1991, giving the small city-state possibly the highest execution rate in the world relative to its population of just over four million people. The figures include a significant percentage of foreigners.

Most of those executed were convicted of drug trafficking which carries a mandatory death penalty. Under various clauses in the Misuse of Drugs Act and the Arms Offences Act, presumption of guilt is assumed upon, conflicting with the right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty. Official information on the death penalty in Singapore is shrouded in secrecy. The government does not normally publish statistics about executions.

Is the Commission aware of this report? What can be done to promote abolition of the death penalty in Singapore?

Question 2:

Martyn See's 26 minute documentary, Singapore Rebel, was banned in Singapore because it portrayed the struggle of Dr Chee Soon Juan against the government. He withdrew his movie from the Singapore International Film Festival after the Board of Film Censors said he could be jailed for up to two years or fined S$100,000 (US$61,300; 46,400) if his film was screened.

In the upcoming 2006 International Monetary Fund and World Bank board of governors annual meeting, 300 foreign accredited NGOs that apply with the Singapore authorities, will be allowed to hold peaceful protests and demonstrations. This right to protest has and have been denied to Singaporeans and Singaporean NGOs. Six protestors were prevented by the police from a peaceful protest when they demonstrated outside the American embassy against the Iraq War. Veteran Singapore opposition politician J.B. Jeyaretnam application for an anti-casino march this year was similarly rejected. The Singapore government is intent on curtailing political expression; and deprive its citizens of their basic civil rights.

In light of European Union commitment on human rights with third countries, in this case, Singapore, what can the Commision do to ensure the Singapore government respects the human, civil rights of its citizens? What can the Commision do to ensure that the government does not curtail political expression?

Question 3:

Shanmugan S/O Murugesu, a Singaporean, is sentenced to death penalty after he was arrested in possession of 6 packets of cannabis, analysed by Health Sciences Authority to contain 1029.8 gram of cannabis and 880.89 gram of cannabis mixture. He was tried before the High Court from the 19th to the 22nd April and was convicted with the sentence. His appeal was heard on 26/10/2004 and dismissed. With all avenues of appeal exhausted, his last resort is to submit his pea of clemency to the President of Singapore.

Shamugan is forced to deal with drugs due to poverty. He is a divorcee looking after his two sons, nieces, nephew and an ageing, sickly mother. He has served in the Singapore Armed Forces for 8 years, in Singapore Sports Council for another 4 and represented the country in national sporting events. Several prior cases with larger amount of cannabis, had their sentences reduced to non capital offences. He will be hanged at the end of this month if he does not receive a pardon.

Is the Commission aware of his situation? What can the Commission do to influence the President of Singapore to grant him clemency?

Question 4:

Remisier Boon Suan Ban is remanded at the Institute of Mental Health (IMH) at Presidents pleasure for harassing the Chief Justice. Mr Robert Ho was also arrested and detained at the Institute of Mental Health. He had been distributing flyers on 27 February 2005 about the elections system in Singapore. His computer was also confiscated. A few years earlier, he was also arrested by the police and investigated for criminal defamation for posting an article about Mr Lee Kuan Yew's daughter-in-law, Mdm Ho Ching. His computer equipment was confiscated and never returned to him. He was only released when he agreed to stop posting articles on the Internet. These cases invariably asked pertinent questions on the rule of law in Singapore.

In light of European Union commitment on human rights with third countries, in this case, Singapore, what can the the Commission do to ensure that justice be done for the two men? What can the Commision do to ensure that such cases will not repeat itself? What can the Commision do to influence the Singapore government to respect the human and civil rights of its citizens?