Singapore Red Cross International Humanitarian Law Debates Final
It is rare that words like “institutionalised forgiveness” or “universal recognition of guilt” pass the lips of junior college students. But such was the calibre of intellectual exchange between debating teams at the Fourth Inter-School Debate Series on International Humanitarian Law (IHL).
Held at Jurong Junior College on February 18, 14 schools waged a war of words on topics surrounding IHL also known as “The Laws of War” to reach the final stage of the competition organised by The Singapore Red Cross (SRC) and the Debates Association (Singapore).
Some other schools that fielded teams include Raffles Institute, Jurong Junior College, River Valley High School and National Junior College amongst others.
But it was Hwa Chong Institute and Anglo Chinese Junior College (ACJC) who emerged top as the two finalists who would battle the motion: “The house would abolish Truth and Reconciliation Commissions (TRCs) in favour of criminal prosecution.”
Hwa Chong Institute’s three debaters made the case for war crimes courts. Second speaker Chng Luey Chi, argued that “every individual has the right to reparation, and the leaders of wars and those responsible for acts of violence should be prosecuted with the full strength of the law.”
“Truth and Reconciliation Commissions allow crimes to be swept under the carpet and forgiveness becomes something that is institutionalised by the state. Without justice for victims, they fail to achieve national unity,” argued first and final reply speaker, Dinnie Ee.
Her team mate, third speaker Woo Jek Jin cited examples of TRCs in Chile and Sri Lanka which failed to achieve justice for victims of conflict.
In the opposition, ACJC’s three young men provided sharp rebuttals in favour of TRCs, “Rehabilitative justice helps society move on whereas criminal trials encourage perpetrators to flee justice,” argued first speaker Mark Lim.
Second speaker and winner of best speaker award, Rabin Kok cited the example of the success of the South African TRC set up by former president Nelson Mandela to investigate crimes committed during the apartheid era. This helped the country view both sides of the conflict equally, he said.
“Courts make the case for perpetual conflict whereas TRCs allow for society to heal,” Mr Kok argued.
By the end of ACJC’s third speaker, Joshua Jesudason’s argument, it became clear which team made a more robust case.
In presenting the top prize to the ACJC, Chief Adjudicator, Oxford University law undergraduate and member of the Debates Association, Mr Anish Hazra, said the winning team had the most consistency in applying their principles and responded logically to counter points made by the opposing team.
Practicing lawyer and coach of the National University of Singapore’s Jean Pictet moot team, Ms Charis Tan, gave a talk on the basic tenets of IHL.
Encouraging audience participation, Ms Tan played a scene from the movie, Blood Diamonds, which showed child soldiers being recruited and trained in Sierra Leone. She divided the audience into fictional teams of conflicting government and rebel groups and encouraged them to discuss a range of thorny issues.
The event’s Guest-of-Honour, Senior Parliamentary Secretary of the Ministry of Law and Ministry of Education, Ms Sim Ann, gave a speech which highlighted the importance of making young people conscious of the rules and norms that govern the global community.
The SRC has taken the lead in this by incorporating the module, “Exploring Humanitarian Law” into the curriculum of Red Cross Youth cadets in secondary schools.
At the tertiary level, SRC will send undergraduates from Singapore’s law schools to participate in international moots promoting the understanding of IHL.