Mr. Lee’s stamp is clear, but he knew what rule of law entailed, says CJ
By Zakir Hussain 28 October 2009
Singapore was fortunate to have a Cambridge-educated lawyer as its first prime minister, for Mr. Lee Kuan Yew knew what the rule of law entailed and was instrumental in shaping it here, Chief Justice Chan Sek Keong said yesterday.
And although legal principles in Singapore are based on English law, the laws today reflect the political, social and cultural values of its people, a point that critics of its courts take issue with, he noted.
‘If you study the Singapore statute book today, you will find MM Lee’s precepts and values reflected in all the laws,’ he said.
‘But pervading all of the laws is the rule of law: the idea that political authority must be exercised subject to and in accordance with the law.’
CJ Chan was delivering the keynote address at a meeting of the New York State Bar Association International Section at the Supreme Court.
He noted that when Singapore became a British possession almost 200 years ago, Sir Stamford Raffles ordered that English law principles be applied ‘with mildness’ and that it consider ‘the prejudices of each tribe’. This even as the colonial legacy of the rule of law would prove invaluable to Singapore’s development.
Fast forward to 1962, when then-Prime Minister Lee, addressing the University of Singapore Law Society, spoke of the gulf between the principles of the rule of law as it evolved in England and the hard realities of social and economic conditions in Malaya.
CJ Chan cited Mr. Lee saying that if the principles were not adjusted ‘but blindly applied, it may be to our undoing’.
Mr. Lee had also explained why he retained laws on detention without trial for political offenders and secret society gangsters, and abolished trials by jury.
Fortunately for Singapore, Mr. Lee knew what the rule of law entailed, CJ Chan said, adding: ‘He was aware of the power of law as an instrument for political, social or economic change. Also, being an elected Asian leader, he believed that he also had the moral authority to act in the interest of the people.
‘At the same time, he realised that there is a limit to the use of legal power.’
Added CJ Chan: ‘If Singapore lacks anything in public governance, it is not law or the rule of law.
‘It is a fundamental tenet of the Government that the law must be obeyed, and the Government is the first to obey the laws of the state.
‘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.’
The rule of law simply meant the supremacy of the law, without reference to whether the law is just or unjust, he explained. And the law must apply to all and be above all.
The rule of law also requires judicial independence, he noted.
He said that while the Constitution guaranteed certain freedoms, these had limits in criminal laws and the law of defamation and contempt of court.
Singapore adopted a tougher stance to repress crime in the 1970s, for instance, he said, adding that ‘a balance has to be struck between the right to life and liberty and the right to order and a safe society’.
CJ Chan also said that from time to time, the courts have found it necessary to exercise their power to punish those whose allegations could undermine their authority or public confidence in the impartial administration of justice.
A recent case in point was when three people entered the Supreme Court wearing T-shirts depicting a kangaroo in judge’s robes whilst a defamation case against an opposition politician was on.
‘That said, in Singapore, you may criticise any person or institution in any way you like provided you do not cross the line as laid down by law. And people in Singapore do freely criticise the Government, its ministers and public institutions, including the courts,’ he said.
He also touched on the law of defamation versus free speech, describing it as ‘a much misunderstood subject’.
While defamation law here is based on English common law, those who drafted the Constitution here placed ‘a higher social value on reputation than on free speech, where they conflict’.
‘The law of defamation is really about balancing the value of free speech and the value of reputation in a democratic society,’ he said.
CJ Chan said that how this balance is to be struck would depend on the political, social and cultural values of a place. This differed from society to society and at different times of their development.
‘It may be the case that the critics have missed the point, and that criticising the Singapore courts is really criticising them for recognising the political, social and cultural values of Singapore society as expressed in its laws,’ he said.
2 comments:
Raffles, MM Lee and the rule of law
Mr. Lee’s stamp is clear, but he knew what rule of law entailed, says CJ
By Zakir Hussain
28 October 2009
Singapore was fortunate to have a Cambridge-educated lawyer as its first prime minister, for Mr. Lee Kuan Yew knew what the rule of law entailed and was instrumental in shaping it here, Chief Justice Chan Sek Keong said yesterday.
And although legal principles in Singapore are based on English law, the laws today reflect the political, social and cultural values of its people, a point that critics of its courts take issue with, he noted.
‘If you study the Singapore statute book today, you will find MM Lee’s precepts and values reflected in all the laws,’ he said.
‘But pervading all of the laws is the rule of law: the idea that political authority must be exercised subject to and in accordance with the law.’
CJ Chan was delivering the keynote address at a meeting of the New York State Bar Association International Section at the Supreme Court.
He noted that when Singapore became a British possession almost 200 years ago, Sir Stamford Raffles ordered that English law principles be applied ‘with mildness’ and that it consider ‘the prejudices of each tribe’. This even as the colonial legacy of the rule of law would prove invaluable to Singapore’s development.
Fast forward to 1962, when then-Prime Minister Lee, addressing the University of Singapore Law Society, spoke of the gulf between the principles of the rule of law as it evolved in England and the hard realities of social and economic conditions in Malaya.
CJ Chan cited Mr. Lee saying that if the principles were not adjusted ‘but blindly applied, it may be to our undoing’.
Mr. Lee had also explained why he retained laws on detention without trial for political offenders and secret society gangsters, and abolished trials by jury.
Fortunately for Singapore, Mr. Lee knew what the rule of law entailed, CJ Chan said, adding: ‘He was aware of the power of law as an instrument for political, social or economic change. Also, being an elected Asian leader, he believed that he also had the moral authority to act in the interest of the people.
‘At the same time, he realised that there is a limit to the use of legal power.’
Added CJ Chan: ‘If Singapore lacks anything in public governance, it is not law or the rule of law.
‘It is a fundamental tenet of the Government that the law must be obeyed, and the Government is the first to obey the laws of the state.
‘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.’
The rule of law simply meant the supremacy of the law, without reference to whether the law is just or unjust, he explained. And the law must apply to all and be above all.
The rule of law also requires judicial independence, he noted.
He said that while the Constitution guaranteed certain freedoms, these had limits in criminal laws and the law of defamation and contempt of court.
Singapore adopted a tougher stance to repress crime in the 1970s, for instance, he said, adding that ‘a balance has to be struck between the right to life and liberty and the right to order and a safe society’.
CJ Chan also said that from time to time, the courts have found it necessary to exercise their power to punish those whose allegations could undermine their authority or public confidence in the impartial administration of justice.
A recent case in point was when three people entered the Supreme Court wearing T-shirts depicting a kangaroo in judge’s robes whilst a defamation case against an opposition politician was on.
‘That said, in Singapore, you may criticise any person or institution in any way you like provided you do not cross the line as laid down by law. And people in Singapore do freely criticise the Government, its ministers and public institutions, including the courts,’ he said.
He also touched on the law of defamation versus free speech, describing it as ‘a much misunderstood subject’.
While defamation law here is based on English common law, those who drafted the Constitution here placed ‘a higher social value on reputation than on free speech, where they conflict’.
‘The law of defamation is really about balancing the value of free speech and the value of reputation in a democratic society,’ he said.
CJ Chan said that how this balance is to be struck would depend on the political, social and cultural values of a place. This differed from society to society and at different times of their development.
‘It may be the case that the critics have missed the point, and that criticising the Singapore courts is really criticising them for recognising the political, social and cultural values of Singapore society as expressed in its laws,’ he said.
Post a Comment