Shanmugam: Our approach to the law has worked

By Zakir Hussain from Straits Times

FACING an audience of mainly American lawyers who have been meeting here for almost a week now, Law Minister K. Shanmugam posed some direct questions at a dialogue yesterday.

‘If you asked any Singaporean lady in this room: she will have not too much concern about taking the metro or taxi or bus at any time, to any location,’ he said.

‘You can walk downtown, to any area, at any time, without fear or concern. Many parents will let their children under 10 take public transport, on their own. Children move about freely – as children should.

‘There are no slums, no ‘no-go’ areas, no deprived inner city areas. More than 90 per cent of the population own their homes.’

And the reason why this is so, he told members of the New York State Bar Association International Section, is Singapore has strict laws and it enforces them.

Noting that critics have questioned whether criminal laws here were too strict, he said that every society sought to strike a balance between individual and societal rights.

‘How that balance is struck depends on the philosophy of the society…We do tend to weigh the balance more towards the society compared with you,’ the Second Home Affairs Minister told an audience of some 200 international lawyers at Maxwell Chambers in Tanjong Pagar.

It is an approach which works for Singapore and enjoys broad public support.

‘We have 3.2 million citizens. Another 1.2 million foreign citizens live, work and study here. Five hundred thousand foreign citizens with permanent resident status have also chosen to be here,’ he said.

‘By and large, this mix of people in our society appear to have no problems with our laws.’

It was the third straight day that participants heard top government and legal minds detail Singapore’s distinct approach to making sure that laws reflected the realities and values of society here.

Mr Shanmugam had, on Monday, addressed perceptions that Singapore’s defamation laws unfairly targeted the press and critics of the Government.

A day later, Chief Justice Chan Sek Keong spoke about the supremacy of the rule of law and the independence of the judiciary, and underlined that Singapore’s laws reflect the political, social and cultural values of its people.

Reflecting on why the officials chose the event to put forward their position on such issues as rights, free speech and the law here, Singapore Management University’s Eugene Tan said it was a good platform to engage participants on concerns some outsiders had about the judiciary.

‘There is a recognition that these views might affect our standing, and there is an endeavour to engage them and deal with some of these concerns,’ the law academic told The Straits Times.

Participants like Mr Jeffrey Tanenbaum, a partner at global law firm Nixon Peabody, were surprised that both had addressed criticisms of Singapore’s approach. However, Mr Tanenbaum was pleased they did so.

‘Perception or misperception can become a reality if they are not addressed. It is important to address and think about these issues,’ he said.

He said that while there was some public perception in America and Europe that the judiciary is not completely independent, the view among international lawyers was quite different.

‘ I think the perception of executive interference…comes from individuals observing political and press cases, and this gets magnified by such things as the US State Department Report on Human Rights, as well as rankings issued by some organisations that track and report on freedom of the press.

‘Although it is not my field of expertise, it is pretty clear that Singapore law looks different than say the law in the US on issues such as defamation and the press.

‘The question though, is whether this comes from executive interference or simply different values and cultural expectations. From what I have seen in the commercial realm, I would tend to think it is just a reflection of different values and culture.’

On Chief Justice Chan’s point that laws reflect the context of their societies, he said: ‘This is at the heart of what laws are supposed to be – a reflection of how each culture ideally wants society to be and act. Of course, basic human rights must also be respected and this also serves as a limit of how far laws can go, must go, and should go.’

It was an issue that Mr Shanmugam dealt with yesterday when he spoke of the challenges Singapore faced in how to implement the ideal of the rule of law and yet deal with social, economic and security concerns.

The rule of law was necessary to assure people of different races that they had equal opportunities, and to attract foreign investments for economic growth, he said.

But there was also a need for tough laws allowing for detention without trial to tackle the communist threat as witnesses would not come forward, and to manage racial tensions.

He said developed societies took stability for granted. In some cases they prescribed solutions for others without regard to the state of society, poverty and literacy levels, and whether the people were able to deal with such changes.

‘The result: you repeatedly see endemic corruption, concentration of power in the hands of a few, no progress in society, failed or failing states,’ he said. ‘To borrow a metaphor, it is like putting a lipstick on a pig. It will still be a pig.’

For Singapore, it was important that the Government be able to respond quickly to the external environment, he said.

Singapore’s exceptionalism had worked in giving its people a better life in a safe and secure environment, he said, citing how gross domestic product per capita had grown from US$500 in 1965 to US$51,500 (S$72,000) today.

‘And no disappearances, shootings on the roads, coups, juntas, muggings and so on,’ he quipped. – ST