Plato wrote: “Where the law is subject to some other authority and has none of its own, the collapse of the state, in my view, is not far off; but if law is the master of the government and the government is its slave, then the situation is full of promise and men enjoy all the blessings that the gods shower on a state.” When John Adams sought to establish “a government of laws and not of men”, he was reminding us the ancient concept of rule of law is to be distinguished from rule by law. Chinese law professor Li Shuguang explained,”The difference….is that under the rule of law the law is preeminent and can serve as a check against the abuse of power. Under rule by law, the law can serve as a mere tool for a government that suppresses in a legalistic fashion.” (Tamanaha, Brian, “On the Rule of Law”, page 3, Cambridge University Press, 2004)
Speaking to the members of the New York State Bar Association International Section holding its seasonal meeting here this week, Chief Justice (CJ) Chan Sek Keong reaffirmed Plato’s posit, “If the political leaders do not respect the laws which Parliament enacted, who else would respect the law? Singapore will become a failed state in no time.” However, he is quick to point out that although legal principles in Singapore are based on English law, the law today reflect the current political, social and cultural values set in place by the powers that be. “If you study the Singapore statute book today, you will find MM Lee’s precepts and values reflected in all the laws.” he said in no uncertain terms. “The complaint here is not the lack of rule of law, but about a so-called democratic deficit. The complaint is that the law may be abused for political purposes.” Such as the rule by law referred to by Professor Li Shuguang.
Law Minister Shanmugam may claim, “If it is said someone is stupid or that policies make no sense and the policies are attacked vigourously, then you can’t sue,” but he also said, and probably in the same breath, “Personal reputation is no less valuable than personal property.” Only Lee Kuan Yew himself can tell a gathering of CitiBank diners that he is stupid for not recognising that money can be made by watching cars driving round and round; when the local press reported the speech, they carefully substituted the word with “dim-witted.” Sounds a bit like rule by law again, doesn’t it? The tool here is “do not cross the line”, as exemplified by CJ Chan’s interpretation of wearing T-shirts depicting a kangeroo in judge’s robes during a defamation case against an opposition politican, or “the press crossed the line,” Shanumugam’s justification for libel lawsuits against the press when latter alleges someone was corrupt , or made some other personal attack. The minister admitted that “The press are not used to this anywhere else in the world.”
It may be puzzling to Shanmugam, but not to anyone else in the world, that Singapore is ranked 151 out of 195 countries by US non-government organisation (NGO) Freedom House, below Haiti, Colombia, Kenya, Moldova, Guinea and Pakistan. Singapore’s dubious ranking is shared by Iraq.
October 28, 2009 at 12:04 pm |
[...] – Readings From A Political Duo-ble: Comments on Singapore’s press rankings – Today In Singapore: Rule Of Law, Or By Law? – Seelan Palay’s Blog: Law Minister says criticisms of Singapore are “Divorced from [...]
October 31, 2009 at 8:44 am |
So what if we have less freedom?
October 31, 2009 at 8:47 am |
I despise Chinese Singaporeans who blindly worship Western values and institutions, without considering the vulnerabilities, political stability and long-term survivability of Singapore.
November 8, 2009 at 11:27 am |
I refer to the Straits Times report dated 28 Oct 2009.
Mr Shanmugam was reported to have said that Singapore’s low ranking in press freedom is both absurd and divorced from reality. Is Mr Shanmugam man enough to allow International organisations to conduct a referendum or a survey to verify just how true his allegation is?
He questions how people can be unempowered in a modern, open economy. China is a good example. It’s economy is not only open but also one that is very rapidly modernising as well. Yet, the people of China remain firmly gripped by communism. So his question is really quite silly given the living example that clearly demonstrate that it is indeed possible.
Mr Shanmugam implies that it is not possible for a modern, successful, wired and internationally connected city like Singapore to be a repressive state where people’s thoughts are controlled. But thought control happens even in modern and prosperous Japan. Since the end of World War 2, generations of Japanese have been brought up to believe that the Nanking massacre never happened and that the Japanese were the victims rather than the aggressors of the war. So too in Singapore, students have been receiving an education slanted towards the vitures of the government. This mind setting process throughout their formative years hardens quite often into stone for the rest of their lives.
Furthermore, many old folks in Singapore are either uneducated or cannot read English. They are not connected to the Internet but are dependent instead on Chinese or malay or Indian news supplied by virtually state owned newspapers. So despite Singapore being wired internationally, there is a significant proportion of us who aren’t.
Mr Shanmugam states that the government demands the right of reply but that right of reply is not extended to the people. So in that sense, it is true that the media favours the government but not the man on the street.
Mr Shanmugan also says that critics of government policies should avoid personal attacks or that which is untrue. But it was precisely on the 11th Oct 2009 that Minister Mah Bow Tan personally attacked some Singaporeans over application claims. Furthermore, the allegations made by Minister Mah weren’t entirely true either. Is this how things work in Singapore? The govt has the right to make personal attacks and to say things which may only be half true while the people are refrained from doing so?
Mr Shanmugan brushes off Singapore’s low ranking by Reporters Without Borders by implying that since Singapore’s social order is much better than those of Guinea, Kenya, Congo or Venezuela, Singapore’s press freedom must necessarily be better. That is not necessarily true. The law and order in China is much better than Guinea, Kenya, Congo or Venezuela. Ye we all know that China is a communist state that imposes strict controls on the press and what it publishes. So Mr Shanmugam’s argument is simply nonsense. You can have very strict press controls with reasonably good law and order. In this case, the same agent that is enforcing strict law and order is also the one enforcing strict press controls.
So if Mr Shanmugam wishes to question the objectivity of the rankings, it needs to come up with more objective arguments than merely equating law and order with press control.
November 13, 2009 at 11:17 am |
[...] – Readings From A Political Duo-ble: Comments on Singapore’s press rankings – Today In Singapore: Rule Of Law, Or By Law? – Seelan Palay’s Blog: Law Minister says criticisms of Singapore are “Divorced from [...]