PAP using "laws" to undermine the rule of
law
There is a big misconception that the PAP abides by the rule of law
principle but in actual fact it enacts and introduces "laws" to
ensure that the rule of law is curtailed.
Rule of law is really the other side of the same coin with
democracy.
The rule of law dictates that all citizens are equal under the law,
including the government.
But what is the reality in Singapore? The PAP government has
resorted to laws to ensure that citizens', civil society groups'
and opposition political parties' rights are denied while its
powers are enhanced. In other words, one set of laws for the PAP
and another set for the rest.
For example the recent arrest of five SDP leaders outside the
Istana, using a new law that makes it an offence for two or more
persons to assemble or hold precession in a gazette area.
Let's look into the genesis of this particular piece of
legislation. In 2002, two SDP leaders Dr Chee Soon Juan and Mr
Gandhi Ambalam were arrested by the police on May Day outside the
Istana while trying to hold a rally. For being outside the Istana,
the two were charged with trespassing. Finally, they were tried and
found guilty in October that year. And in November 2002, the PAP
government brings in the new law that prohibits assemblies and
procession by two or more persons.
The Public Entertainment and Meetings Act is another legislation
that has been conveniently broadened to deal with political
opposition. When Dr Chee spoke at Raffles Place in Dec 1998 and Jan
1999 without a permit, he faced a charge under the then Public
Entertainments Act. It was only after his conviction and sentence,
the word "meetings" was added as amendment to the original
act.
The Films Act is yet another typical example of how the PAP resorts
to the use of "laws" to undermine the rule of law. In 1996, the SDP
produced a 20-minute documentary for the impending general
elections but the film censor board had immediately banned it from
distributed to the electorate. Only after the 1997 general
elections, the minister for information moved amendments to the act
in the House to include films of political nature.
Similarly, the Broadcasting Act was amended to bring foreign
broadcasters such as the CNBC and BBC within the ambit of the law
after they had earlier given wide coverage to Dr Chee's public
speeches at Raffles Place.
The Political Donations Act is entirely a new invention of the PAP.
After Mr J B Jeyaretnam and Dr Chee founded the Open Singapore
Centre in 2001 and appealed for funding from overseas, this piece
of legislation was passed to prevent organizations that the PAP
named "political" from receiving funds.
It's clear that these laws were enacted to curtail democratic
activities to further entrench PAP's authoritarian rule. By any
stretch of imagination this cannot be considered the practice of
the rule of law.
The abolition of appeals to the Privy Council is a classic case of
PAP government's disregard for the rule of law. After Singapore
became independent in 1965, the Judicial Committee of the Privy
Council in London continued to remain the ultimate court of appeal
for Singapore. This was because the then prime minister Mr Lee Kuan
Yew had expressed the hope that "faith in the judicial system will
never be diminished, and I am sure it will not, so long as we allow
a review of the judicial processes that takes place here in some
other tribunal where obviously undue influence cannot be brought to
bear".
But all these lofty ideals ended as mere rhetoric when the law
lords in Oct 1988 allowed Mr J B Jeyaretnam's appeal and noted
"their deep disquiet that by a series of misjudgments the appellant
and his co-accused Wong have suffered a grievous injustice. They
have been fined, imprisoned and publicly disgraced for offences for
which they are not guilty."
That was a damning indictment. Soon steps were taken to delink
Singapore's judiciary with the Privy Council in London.
In addition to all these new laws, amendments and repeal of some
existing ones, the PAP government is concentrating on broadening
the Penal Code so that more civil and political activities are
criminalized and penalties enhanced as further deterrent for the
push for democracy.
http://www.singaporedemocrat.org/articleiba16.html
