I refer to the article “Staying calm, collected is Singapore’s approach to navigating turbulent environment: Chan Chun Sing” (Channel NewsAsia, Feb 4).
It states that “another guiding factor is belief in the rule of law”.
As I know very little about the “rule of law” – I googled “rule of law Singapore” and found the following (some extracts as the documents are very long):-
“International Bar Association (IBA) – “According to the IBA’s Executive Director Mark Ellis, the IBA itself faced a similarly confrontational approach when it hosted its first Rule of Law day at the 2007 Annual Conference in Singapore.
The authorities initially attempted to impose extremely restrictive limits on any sort of discussion or criticism.
Only when threatened with the potential for an embarrassing cancellation of the event did the government acquiesce and allow it to go ahead uncensored.
‘Singapore should immediately abolish defamation as a criminal offence,’ said the IBAHRI in its 2008 report, Prosperity versus individual rights? Human rights, democracy and the rule of law in Singapore, ‘and should abolish heavy sanctions for defamation offences; prohibit public officials from instituting criminal defamation; and review the existing defences to ensure they are in line with international standards.
Little has changed in the seven years since the IBAHRI report was issued.
In spite of calls by the UN Special Rapporteur, among others, to abolish criminal defamation, the law remains in force and a powerful tool to silence critics.
In partnership with laws targeting bloggers and the media, the government has ensured a long-standing chilling effect.
Protests – be they written or physical – are rare and outspoken criticism is scarce.
Local media of every ilk is run by those with government ties, while the internet (including personal Facebook pages) is heavily policed.
‘In addition to strict defamation and press laws, the government’s demonstrated willingness to respond vigorously to what it considered personal attacks on officials led journalists and editors to moderate or limit what was published,’ the US State Department noted in its last Singaporean rights report.
‘The constitution provides for freedom of speech and freedom of expression but imposes official restrictions on these rights, and the government significantly restricted freedom of speech and of the press with regard to criticism of the government.
’Outside the realm of free speech, Singapore has come under criticism for its archaic anti-gay laws. Australian jurist and IBAHRI Vice-Chair Michael Kirby said that the colonial-era criminalising of sex between men ‘reflects poorly on the capacity of Singapore to modernise laws that are clearly out of date and that serve only to oppress minorities’.
He says: ‘It is astonishing that as such a progressive society, that embraces the cutting edge of science, Singapore has not been able to shake off the primitive colonial laws against sexual minorities (LGBTI) inherited from Britain.
’For Singapore’s vast pool of foreign migrant workers, the law can prove similarly wanting.The country has perhaps the highest reliance on foreign labour in the region, with about 40 per cent of its labour force made up of non-Singaporeans.
For expatriate white-collar workers, Singapore is startlingly manageable.
Laws regulating high-earning professionals make for a seamless work permit, residency and visa process.
Regional ‘migrant workers’, however, who earn as little as $300 a month, are afforded few such protections.
For those working as construction workers, maids, salespeople and the like, requirements for permits are onerous and open to abuse.
For instance, domestic workers, of whom there are more than 200,000 working in Singapore, didn’t receive a government-legislated weekly ‘off day’ until 2012.
Employers frequently break laws governing treatment of foreign workers, but prosecutions are rare.
Employers even have the right to unilaterally cancel a worker’s permit, putting workers in a precarious position should the employer make unlawful demands.
When employees do bring suit against their employer – for non-payment, for physical abuse, for dangerous work conditions – the former are often barred from seeking work while a case is pending.
Even if one is likely to win, the prospect of going one or two years without work is an impossible sacrifice for most migrant workers.
‘The kinds of rights we’re advocating aren’t any more than that given to any Singaporeans.
We’re not asking for extra rights,’ said Tam Peck Hoon, an advocacy head at the protection group Humanitarian Organization for Migrant Economics.’”
“Democracy Web: Comparative studies in freedom – Rule of Law: Country Studies – Singapore – “ruled in an authoritarian manner and created a repressive system that punished free expression, independent political activity, the freedom of association, and other basic rights that are considered fundamental to the rule of law.
Opposition political parties face obstacles and an unbalanced electoral playing field … restrictions on assembly and speech, and the use of detentions.
The leaders of the main opposition parties and the editors of their party newspapers are sometimes jailed or sued in court for slander, often bankrupting them in the process.
Singapore lacks various elements of the rule of law found in free societies, most importantly the protection of human rights and the separation of powers.
A critical component of Singaporean law is the Internal Security Act, which the British imposed in response to the Communist insurgency in the 1950, and today permits the Internal Security Department to take action against perceived security threats, such as terrorism or the disruption of racial and religious peace.
The media are strongly controlled by the state, with few alternatives available to citizens for independent news.
In 2006, the media watchdog group Reporters Without Borders ranked Singapore 146th in media freedom (latest ranking now is 154th) (out of 168 countries surveyed) …
Restrictions on the freedom of expression also extend to foreign media outlets, which are sometimes restricted from distributing materials containing negative stories about Singapore or its political leadership.
Such censorship has occurred with the Wall Street Journal, the New York Times, Newsweek, and others. The Financial Times has agreed to be sold partly censored””
Leong Sze Hian.