December 12, 2009 by admin
Filed under Headlines
Leave a comment
During a speech made at a Law Society seminar yesterday,
constitutional law expert Professor Thio Li-Ann spoke about the
relationship between the rule of law and other indicators of
constitutional government and good governance.
Professor Thio felt that while the law means different things to
different people, “formal rule of law doesn’t provide any criteria
by which you can assess whether something is or is not good law” in
the context of Singapore.
While she refrained from commenting on the rule of law in
Singapore, Professor Thio noted that the Singapore Constitution
“permits instances where the State is beyond law and judicial
control, as in the case of emergency powers and preventive
detention laws, where the needs of the State come first and
foremost.”
“The courts do have a role in how these powers are reviewed
… It’s not a huge role. The courts cannot enquire if the detention
reasons are good … (but) it must be based on national security
concerns,” she added.
Under the draconian Internal Security Act, anybody deemed a
“threat” to the state can be detained without trial
indefinitely.
The detention orders are signed by the Home Affairs Ministers
and the detainees do not have the right to access to legal advice.
Neither can their lawyers overturn the decision to detain them in a
Singapore court.
Chia Thye Poh was detained under the ISA for 32
years, making him the longest-detained political prisoner of
conscience in the world, followed by Dr Lim Hock Siew (19
years), Said Zahari (17 years) and Dr Poh Soo Kai (16 years)
(In contrast, Nobel prize laureates Nelson Mandela was
imprisoned for 28 years and Aung San Suu Kyi is (still) under house
arrest for 13 years)
The ISA is an archaic law introduced in the 1950s by the British
in Malaya and Singapore during the communist insurrection and was
initially known as the Public Security Ordinance (PSO).
After the Emergency was declared over in 1960, the Malayan (now
Malaysian) government replaced the PSO with the ISA with much of
the same powers.
The ISA was used in 1963 under “Operation Coldstore” to detained
hundreds of suspected communists in Singapore including key leaders
of the opposition Barisan Sosialist such as Lim Chin Siong, Dr Lim
Hock Siew, Sydney Woodhull, and Dr Poh Soo Kai.
Their arrests enabled the PAP to win the general elections held
only a few weeks later.
According to declassified documents from the British National
Archives, the communist threat was “played up” by then Singapore’s
Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew who allegedly tried to persuade the
British High Comissioner Lord Selkrik and Malayan Prime Minister
Tunku Abdul Rahman to arrest even his former comrade Ong Eng Guan
under a joint operation by the Internal Security Council in
addition to several of his political adversaries in the
opposition.
Lord Selkrik wrote to his superiors in London imploring them not
to listen to Lee:
“Lee is probably very much attracted to the idea of
destroying his political opponents. It should be remembered that
there is behind all this a very personal aspect…he claims he wishes
to put back in detention the very people who were released at his
insistence – people who are intimate acquaintances, who have served
in his government, and with whom there is a strong sense of
political rivalry which transcends ideological
differences.”
Selkirk’s deputy, Philip Moore, reviewed intelligence reports
and concluded that there were no security reasons to detain Lim
Chin Siong:
“Lim is working very much on his own and that his primary
objective is not the Communist millennium but to obtain control of
the constitutional government of Singapore.”
(Lim Chin Siong was never a member of the Communist Party of
Malaya and in his memoirs published in 2003, CPM Secretary-General
Chin Peng denied that the Barisan Sosialist was ever controlled by
the CPM and neither had he met Lim before in person)
[Source: The Fajar Generation by Dr Poh Soo Kai, Tan
Jing Quee and Koh Kay Yew]
The last time the ISA was used against the opposition was in
1988 under “Operation Spectrum” when over 20 social activists and
members of the Workers’ Party were arrested for plotting a “Marxist
Conspiracy” to subvert the Singapore government, one of whom was a
former Solicitor-General of Singapore Mr Francis Seow.
The charges were never quite proven and even key figures in the
establishment such as S Dhalabanan (a former minister), Tharman
Shanmugaratham (current Finance minister) and Walter Woon (current
Attorney-General) have expressed sceptisms about the case.
The ISA is now used sparingly to counter the growing threat from
terrorism.
The Malaysian Bar Association has spoken out ferociously against
the continued existence of the ISA in Malaysia and calls for its
immediate abolition and replacement with an “anti-terrorism” act to
deal specifically with terrorists.
The Singapore Law Society has remained eerily silent on the
issue so far. Under the law, Singapore lawyers
are only permitted to comment on legislative matters if their
opinions are specifically sought after by the government.
News source: Channel News Asia, 11 December
2009
The speech could have been more honest to benefit the
conscience of the Speaker, as well as to those Singaporeans
who gave their time to listen to the Speaker.
Unfortunately, even a learned Professor will have to be
circumspect, and to be careful how its speech will weave a
picture to be formed by the audience.
Why did "she refrained from
commenting on the rule of law in Singapore" ?
Why did the Speaker arrived at a conclusion
"that while the law means
different things to different people, formal rule of law doesn’t
provide any criteria by which you can assess whether something is
or is not good law” in the context of Singapore" ?
Can there be a situation when "the law means different things to different
people" ?
Should the Law not have been a universal standard for a
society and a community of people to conduct their relations in a
mutually accepted understanding concerning a set of rules
that form as the Law ?
It is amazing that the Speaker can speak about -
'the Singapore Constitution
“permits instances where the State is beyond law and judicial
control, as in the case of emergency powers and preventive
detention laws, where the needs of the State come first and
foremost.” but will refrain
herself from commenting on the rule of law in Singapore.
The Singapore Constitution was bastardised from its original
intent in the clearly and simply worded paragraphs that allowed the
Ruling Party to rule with impunity, and seemingly under the rule of
law.
Can the State be beyond law and judicial control ?
Should the needs of the State come first and foremost over that
of the Citizens ?
Are the Citizens not the State ?
Without the Citizens - can a State exist ?
If at all, the risks to the Citizens are clear and
multi-folds.
Meanwhile the interests of the Citizens are put in
jeopardy, as the State a.k.a the Government that is
formed by a group of elites will become determined to usurp
total political power as a Stalinist-Autocrat.