A/HRC/18/11 example that, after independence, English had been chosen as the working language of Singapore, even though it was not native to its Malay, Chinese and Indian population. Some limits on certain freedoms had to be accepted in order to live in harmony. For example, Singapore moderated the loudness of calls to prayer from mosques as well as the size of joss sticks that Buddhists and Taoists burned in public. To maintain equilibrium, Singapore had to make difficult choices between one right and another right and make adjustments at the margins. 10. The fourth principle was meritocracy. As a small country with no natural resources except its people, Singapore had to bring out the best in every person, regardless of gender, race or any other criteria. For those who faced socio-economic disadvantages at the outset, Government assistance schemes helped to put them on an even footing. 11. The final principle was effective governance, without which no other right could be realized. Good governance formed the foundation of the country’s progress and stability and was built upon democratic accountability and the rule of law, a long-term orientation and social justice. 12. The Government achieved social justice through equal treatment of all groups and heavily subsidized social infrastructure to facilitate social mobility, rather than social welfare. Singapore believed that the best way to empower people was to provide them with the capacity to look after themselves. For the vulnerable, who, despite their best efforts, were unable to improve on their situations, the Government provided targeted assistance. 13. At the international level, effective governance meant that Singapore took its international obligations seriously. Thus, Singapore would only sign on to a treaty when it was absolutely sure that it could implement it. Singapore should be able to accede to the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities by 2012. 14. Singapore was constantly evolving and adapting to improve its unique society. The balance of rights and obligations would need to be guided by the interests of its people and the constraints of Singaporean geography, size and society. B. Interactive dialogue and responses by the State under review 15. During the interactive dialogue, 54 delegations made statements. A number of delegations thanked Singapore for its constructive participation, openness and willingness to cooperate in the universal periodic review process and acknowledged its efforts in the promotion and protection of human rights. Active dialogue with civil society during the preparation of the national report was positively noted. Additional statements which could not be delivered during the interactive dialogue owing to time constraints were posted on the Extranet of the universal periodic review where available.1 Recommendations made during the dialogue are to be found in chapter II of the present report. 16. Brunei Darussalam thanked Singapore for carrying out broad consultations involving relevant NGOs. It congratulated Singapore on its achievements and its commitment to promoting and protecting the rights of its people. Brunei Darussalam looked forward to working closely with Singapore in promoting and protecting human rights such 1 4 Australia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belgium, Brazil, Burkina Faso, Cape Verde, Chile, China, Costa Rica, Ecuador, Germany, Hungary, Iran (Islamic Republic of), Italy, Jamaica, Kenya, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Maldives, Mexico, Namibia, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Palestine, Portugal, Republic of Korea, Rwanda, Senegal, Slovakia, Spain, Sweden, Turkey, Ukraine, United States of America.