Written by Ng E-Jay
07 Jan 2009

At the opening of the legal year in the Supreme Court last week, Chief Justice Chan Sek Keong, Attorney-General Walter Woon and Law Minister K Shanmugam launched an all-out offensive against civil rights activists campaigning for democratic change in Singapore as well as foreign media which have criticized our judiciary and the rule of law here.

In particular, CJ Chan insinuated that activists in Singapore have attempted to undermine public confidence in the courts by making “false and scandalous allegations“, and AG Woon said that “that there appears to be a campaign by certain people both here and abroad to attack the integrity and independence of the Singapore courts“, that “it is not permissible to undermine the courts and judiciary for political or ideological reasons“, that these “appear to be part of a broader campaign to force a change in our laws by extra-legal means“. (ST link)

K Shanmugam, which is also the Second Minister for Home Affairs, noted that “in the last few years, there have been people who did not like certain laws and the way they showed it was to go out there and protest“, but he countered that “the way to change the law is to get elected politically and argue in Parliament why the law should be changed“. Denouncing civil rights activists who have sought to highlight the unfairness of certain laws and how the Constitution has been violated by selective application of these laws, Shanmugam remarked that “… an aggressive small group of people think they can change those laws by going out there and protesting and the courts have repeatedly emphasised they will apply the law as it is.”

The remarks and comments made by the Chief Justice, Attorney-General, and Law Minister are consistent with the way the mainstream media has portrayed civil rights activists working for democratic change in Singapore as “radicals” who prefer to break the law and attract attention to themselves rather than work within the law and effect change by winning elections and arguing their case in Parliament — see for example this ST article by Peh Shing Huei entitled “The partitioning of the opposition”, my response to Peh’s article, and Dr Chee Soon Juan’s response to Peh’s article. This time round however, the rhetoric has been notched up to a new all-time high.

In response to the latest public statements by CJ, AG and the Law Minister, Dr Chee Soon Juan has published an extremely well-written and comprehensive piece here. It is a seminal masterpiece of exposition which highlights the loose logic of these three gentlemen as well as the self-serving attitude of the ruling party which has repeatedly shown its willingness to subvert the Constitution and pay scant heed to the basic rights and dignity of the people in order to perpetuate its own power.

Dr Chee puts to dust CJ Chan’s accurate but woefully one-sided assertion that “the mission of the courts requires that its authority be respected by all, (and that this respect) is fundamental and critical to the rule of law” by pointing out very succinctly that what CJ Chan has failed to state is that “the rule of law is not just a system where the government passes legislation and everyone unquestioningly obeys. The concept of the rule of law necessitates the limitation of state power and the respect of human rights.”

Selective Application of Unjust Laws

Article 12 of our Constitution states categorically that “all persons are equal before the law and entitled to the equal protection of the law.” Yet, as Dr Chee has rightfully pointed out, this clause apparently fell flat on the authorities who arrested 12 Tak Boleh Tahan activists on 15 March 2008 for holding a peaceful demonstration near Parliament House commemorating World Consumer Rights Day and subsequently charged a total of 18 activists in Court for holding an assembly and procession without a permit, but yet allowed the Consumer Association of Singapore (CASE) to hold a rally on a far larger scale commemorating exactly the same occasion, with hundred of participants holding placards.

If CASE had not been granted a police permit for their event, is this not selective application of the law? And if they had been granted a permit, why was one not granted to the Tak Boleh Tahan organizers despite appeals?

More examples abound in recent memory. On 22 Jan 2007, the Worker’s Party Youth Wing organized a visit to the new Parliament House and eight members took a group photo in front of what the authorities have declared a “gazetted area”. To the best of my knowledge, none of them have been charged for participating in an illegal assembly, not subject to police investigations. Yet, when the Tak Boleh Tahan activists gathered in front of Parliament House and took a group photo, this became part of the basis for charging them for illegal assembly.

On National Day 2008, the Worker’s Party organized an outreach campaign at one of the HDB heartlands. They were decked in party T-shirts and took a group photo together with a large banner proclaiming “Say NO to GST Profiteering” in front of a hawker centre. However, on the same day, when close to 30 Tak Boleh Tahan campaigners wore identical red T-shirts and carried out a similar grassroots campaign at Toa Payoh Central (albeit on a different theme), they were approached by plain-clothes policemen who informed them that they were participating in an illegal assembly. Each of them were subsequently subject to police investigations.

On 30 Dec 2008, over 200 China nationals gathered peacefully outside the Ministry of Manpower (MOM) building to demand that they be paid their due wages. Not only did they show that that it was possible to conduct a peaceful assembly even on such a sensitive topic that threatens their very livelihood, but they were eventually successful in pressuring MOM to take concrete action and for their respective employers to compensate them. (Read Wayang Party’s writeup here.)

Contrast this with the blatant arrest of four SDP activists who conducting a peaceful protest with placards outside the CPF Building in 2005 in which riot squads consisting of close to 40 police officers were sent in. The activists were protesting against the non-transparent and non-accountable nature of the way the Government deals with public funds. Two of the protesters were women. (See here.)

It is this highly selective application of unjust laws and the gross over-reaction by the authorities with resepect to peaceful demonstrations organized to criticize the Government that led Dr Chee to assert that “the concept of the rule of law necessitates the limitation of state power and the respect of human rights“, and shows why CJ Chan’s statements ring but a hollow bell in a legal and political climate currently filled with smoke and mirrors, and in Dr Chee’s words, amount to “buzz phrases used to prop up a facade“.

Besides if, as AG Walter Woon has claimed, that “the essence of the rule of law is that the law applies to all“, then why has the Singapore Judiciary not initiated Contempt of Court charges against the International Bar Association (IBA) for questioning the independence of the judiciary in Singapore including allegations of Executive influence? Hasn’t the IBA, by its comments, scandalized our Judiciary by the very definitions and standards provided by AG Woon? (See here and here.)

That the selective application of unjust laws is specifically targeted at political Opposition can in fact be clearly seen by the charge brought against 6 members and supporters of the SDP for distributing flyers outside City Hall MRT Station in 2006 publicizing an up-coming rally that was to have been held at Speaker’s Corner during the WB-IMF Conference in September. The charge reads that the accused: “did participate in an assembly intended to demonstrate opposition to the actions of the Government“. Never has the underlying intent of a Court charge been made so explicitly clear. (See here.)

Subordinate Legislation banning outdoor assemblies & processions is Ultra Vires

Dr Chee questions whether the ruling party has the power to ban outdoor demonstrations (save those at Hong Lim Park) when Article 14 of the Constitution states that “every citizen of Singapore has the right to freedom of speech and expression, (and to) assemble peaceably without arms”, and Article 4, in stating that “this Constitution is the supreme law of the Republic of Singapore and any law enacted by the Legislature after the commencement of this Constitution which is inconsistent with this Constitution shall, to the extent of the inconsistency, be void,” prohibits Parliament from enacting subsidiary legislation that contradicts the Constitution.

It is clear that subordinate legislation enshrined in Section 5 of the Miscellaneous Offences (Public Order and Nuisance) Act (Assemblies and Processions) has not only been selectively applied by the authorities to suppress political dissent, but is in fact ultra vires.

The more things change, the more they remain the same

Law Minister K Shanmugam has opined that “the way to change the law is to get elected politically and argue in Parliament why the law should be changed“. This is very similar to Goh Chok Tong’s remarks to Catherine Lim that “those who comment on politics should join political parties“. Despite claiming that they are becoming more politically open and tolerant, the PAP’s attitude towards active citizenry and citizen participation in the political process can be best described as “the more things change, the more they remain the same” (”plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose” — Jean-Baptiste Alphonse Karr).

Contrary to AG Walter Woon’s beliefs, the law and politics can never be separated. They are in fact joined at the hip because Parliament, which is a body elected through a political process, has the sole authority to make broad sweeping changes to the law, and is in fact morally obliged to do so in accordance with the will of the people, rather than its own self-serving interests. Furthermore, in any normal functioning democracy, every citizen has a role to play in the political process, and it is the contribution of each citizen’s voice to the collective pool of ideas that makes for a climate of political vibrancy. Otherwise, stagnant and apathy set in, and the country degenerates into a nation of sheep vulnerable to exploitation by political wolves.

In Dr Wong Wee Nam’s article entitled “The Need for a Multi-Party System“, he argues that “society is stable only when individual citizens with conflicting interests are allowed to have their voices heard and their needs addressed.” It is only when citizens participate actively in the political process regardless of whether they are in a position of power or authority that they feel a sense of pride and community, and feel they have a stake in the country.

With the ruling party’s self-serving opinion that those who want to comment on politics should join political parties or that the only way to campaign for changes in the law is to first become elected to Parliament, is it any wonder why many Singaporeans are giving up and emigrating due to their lack of belonging to our nation?

Sometimes, civil disobedience is the only option left for activists

Is our electoral system free and fair, and does the Newspaper and Printing Presses Act (Chapter 206) give citizens full leeway to establish a free and independent media? I hardly think so.

Given that the mainstream media is controlled by the ruling party, which has complete dominance of Parliament, and that the few Opposition MPs in Parliament are frequently reluctant to speak up vociferously on the pressing issues of the day or stand firm when they are challenged by the ruling elite, it should not come as a surprise that sometimes, the only way for activists to make their voices heard loud and clear is to peacefully engage in civil disobedience and non-violent action.

Non-violent action is employed when all mainstream avenues have been closed and people are left without a voice. For this however, activists are hauled to Court and charged. Until this changes, the CJ’s, AG’s and Law Minister’s talk about the rule of law will remain but as abstract nonsense.

Original link

Mr Chan Sek Keong, Chief Justice
Mr Walter Woon, Attorney-General
Mr K Shanmugam, Minister for Law

Dear sirs,

Your speeches during the opening of the legal year were unmistakable references to my colleagues and I. Yet, like Mr Lee Kuan Yew, you did not deign to mention us by name. This is rather impolite, if not altogether puerile.

Be that as it may, allow me to address the points that you raised.

Mr Chan says that “the mission of the courts requires that its authority be respected by all” and that this respect is “fundamental and critical to the rule of law.” Amen.

What you fail to state, however, is that the rule of law is not just a system where the government passes legislation and everyone unquestioningly obeys. The concept of the rule of law necessitates the limitation of state power and the respect of human rights.

Our Constitution spells out what these limitations are. It also defines the rights of the citizen.

Are citizens treated equally under the law?

Of importance are two fundamental articles. Let me start with Article 12 which says that “all persons are equal before the law and entitled to the equal protection of the law.”

Is everyone in Singapore treated equally under the law? The question is highlighted by two recent protests: One was conducted by the Consumer Association of Singapore (CASE) and the other by Tak Boleh Tahan activists. Both were conducted outside Parliament House, both involved displaying placards, both were commemorating the same occasion (Consumer Rights Day) and both involved persons wearing t-shirts bearing a slogan. The difference is that CASE is run by PAP MPs whereas the TBT protest was made up of human rights defenders.

While CASE was allowed to conduct its activity, my TBT associates and I were arrested and now face prosecution.

It could be that CASE, being affiliated with the Government, does not require a permit because under the Rule 2(1) (f) of the Miscellaneous Offences Act “any assembly or procession held by or under the direction or control of the Government” is exempt from a permit.

But herein lies the rub. Is such a Rule valid under Article 12 of the Constitution which expressly says that all persons are equal before the law?

Or it could be that CASE may have had a permit to conduct its protest, in which instance arises the question: Why was a permit granted to CASE but not to TBT?

Can the Government ban protests outright?

The discrmination between CASE and TBT is especially salient when the Minister for Home Affairs Wong Kan Seng said in Parliament that he has “stopped short of allowing outdoor and street demonstrations.”

With reference to Article 14 – which states that “every citizen of Singapore has the right to freedom of speech and expression” and that “all citizens of Singapore have the right to assemble peaceably and without arms” – does the Minister have the power to ban outdoor demonstrations in the first place and even if he does, why did he not apply the law equally to CASE?

Remember Article 4 unambiguously states that: “This Constitution is the supreme law of the Republic of Singapore and any law enacted by the Legislature after the commencement of this Constitution which is inconsistent with this Constitution shall, to the extent of the inconsistency, be void.”

These questions need to be examined by the Judiciary which has a sacred duty to ensure that, one, laws introduced by the Government do not violate the Constitution and, two, that they are not used to discriminate against certain groups of citizens.

Laws cannot be passed or applied will-nilly to buttress the power of the ruling party while suppressing the political opposition and civil society. When the ruling party imposes and enacts such unjust laws, the judiciary must intervene to protect the rights of the citizenry.

This is, in essence, what constitutes the rule of law. Absent such a judicial function, the rule of law is just a buzz phrase used to prop up a facade.

What other chief justices say

Your counterparts in democratic jurisdictions where the rule of law is genuinely practiced all acknowledge this aspect of the judiciary’s role vis-a-vis the rule of law.

The former Chief Justice of India, Mr P N Bhagwatie, noted that “The judiciary is one such institution on which rests the noble edifice of democracy and the rule of law. It is to the judiciary that is entrusted the task of keeping every organ of the State within the limits of power conferred upon it by the Constitution…It is the solemn function of the judiciary to ensure that no constitutional or legal functionary or authority acts beyond the limits of its power nor that there be any abuse or misuse of power.”

Former UK Lord Chief Justice Bingham said: “The rule of law must, surely, require legal protection of such human rights as, within that society, are seen as fundamental. It is that ministers and public officers at all levels must exercise the powers conferred on them reasonably, in good faith, for the purpose for which the powers were conferred and without exceeding the limits of such powers.”

UK Lord Chancellor Irvine in the House of Lords determined that “Any system of law under which the individual was convicted and made subject to a criminal penalty for breach of an unlawful byelaw would be inconsistent with the rule of law…If subordinate legislation is ultra vires on any basis, it is unlawful and of no effect in law.”

Canada’s Chief Justice, Madam Beverly McLachlin, wrote that “Judges must resist…making ‘law’ out of what cannot be just, and hence, in a profound sense, cannot be legal. To do otherwise is to allow injustice to hide itself under the cloak of false legality.”

Sadly, I am reminded of your opinion as Attorney-General, as you then were, in the aftermath of the elections in 1997. PAP ministers, including the prime minister, had entered polling stations without authorisation. You explained, with excruciating logic, that under the Parliamentary Elections Act “unauthorised entry into or presence within a polling station” is not an offence.

Worse, you concluded that “those unauthorised persons who only wait or loiter inside a polling station on polling day do not commit any offence under the Act.”

And yet the Act clearly states the presiding officer shall “exclude all other persons except the candidates, the polling agent or agents of each candidate, the Returning Officer and persons authorised in writing by the Returning Officer, the police officers on duty and other persons officially employed at the polling station.” The ministers who entered the polling stations did not fall into any of these categories.

Fulfilling international obligations

The United Nations’ Universal Declaration of Human Rights proclaims that “Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association” and that “Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression”.

Save for the most autocratic of regimes, these rights are recognized by every government in the world and have given rise to legally binding obligations. The UDHR is now part of customary international law, binding on all states and guaranteed to all persons.

Furthermore Singapore voted in favor of General Assembly Resolution 28/251 in 2006. This resolution was made to establish the UN Human Rights Council which stipulates “that all human rights are universal, indivisible, interrelated, interdependent and mutually reinforcing”.

In 2003, Singapore also signed the Commonwealth (Latimer House) Principles on the Three Branches of Government which pledged to protect the “fundamental human rights, including equal rights and opportunities for all citizens regardless of race, colour, creed or political belief“. (empahsis mine)

Why do I mention these international agreements? Chief Justice Bingham said that the “rule of law requires compliance by the state with its obligations in international law, the law which whether deriving from treaty or international custom and practice governs the conduct of nations.”

Extra-legal or extra-constitutional?

My arguments above also apply to the comments made by AG Walter Woon. Mr Woon says that my colleagues and I have conducted a “campaign to force a change in our laws by extra-legal means.”

Obviously, you are confused. Our campaign is to compel the ruling clique to return to the rule of law. If there is anything “extra” about what is going on in Singapore it is that the PAP has been ruling the country through extra-constitutional means.

Since the Constitution is the supreme law of this country, your description of changing laws by extra-legal means is better applied to the PAP instead of the SDP.

You also said: “The essence of the rule of law is that the law applies to all.” For the reasons I enumerated above, I cannot agree with you more. The trick is for you to conscientiously practice what you so eloquently preach.

Fooling the people

Mr K Shanmugam noted that my associates and I did not like certain laws and the way we showed it was “to go out there and protest.” Your statement, ironically, contradicts what CJ Chan and AG Woon try so hard to portray.

In case you haven’t realised, protests to affect the introduction, passage, and enactment of legislation is a right enjoyed by citizens in Japan, Taiwan, Hong Kong, South Korea, Australia, US, Europe, etc; in other words, in societies where the rule of law exists. The right to citizens to conduct peaceful protests is exactly what the rule of law permits and what democracy encourages.

But protest is not only used to affect the state’s decision-making process. It also allows the people to participate in the political process and helps bind them to society. Given the exodus of Singaporeans, is this such a bad thing?

Your argument that “the way to change the law was to get elected politically and argue in Parliament why the law should be changed” is, to put it delicately, disingenuous. Wasn’t it Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong, who, in a rare moment of candour, avowed that he intends to buy his support and fix the opposition? Mr Lee Kuan Yew even goes to the extent to say that the army will be called in in the event of a “freak” election where the opposition wins power.

Other of your party bosses have unabashedly insisted that Singapore will remain a one-party system. Does all this sound like a situation where one can get democratically elected, let alone do it in enough numbers to change laws? In the words of Abraham Lincoln: you can fool some people some of the time…

Rule of law cannot be merely proclaimed

What the three of you have described is not the rule of law. Rather, it is a system where laws – unjust laws, laws that run contrary to our Constitution, and laws that contravene the Universal Declaration of Human Rights – are used to suppress the rule of law in Singapore.

You are probably aware that the International Bar Association, an organisation whose conference the Government and Law Society welcomed and keenly participated in, said in its report that “A strong and robust rule of law requires respect for and protection of democracy, human rights – including freedom of expression and freedom of assembly” but that the “Singapore Government is currently failing to meet established international standards in these areas.”

The truth is that the rule of law must be practised, not merely proclaimed. Saying that we have the rule of law in Singapore does not make it so. If and when the rule of law is entrenched in this country, I assure you that respect will flow not just from the mouths but also from the hearts of the people.

Yours faithfully,

Chee Soon Juan
Secretary-General
Singapore Democratic Party

THE two-week deadline has passed, but Tipper Corp’s workers have not received a cent of their unpaid salary.

According to the company’s director Loke Siew Fai, the firm appealed to the Manpower Ministry (MOM) yesterday for another month to pay the monies owed.

‘Ultimately, we have to pay them, but I need breathing space to find the money,’ said Mr Loke.

The workers involved said they are owed between one and three months’ pay.

The saga of the 180 Bangladeshi workers began about three weeks ago, when they were told by one of the two subcontractors who hired them that there was no more work and they would not be paid their salaries.

The subcontractors - S1 Engineering and UPNB - then abandoned the workers. Meal deliveries stopped and electricity and water were cut off.

Since then, their employer Tipper has provided the workers with food and moved them to a workers’ dormitory in Kranji.

On Dec 22, Tipper was asked by MOM to pay its workers within two weeks.

The company has been unable to do so.

It said it is waiting for the subcontractors to hand over the passports, time sheets and all documents relating to the 180 workers, and another 420 workers who were subcontracted to them.

There has been no progress over the past two weeks.

A scuffle even broke out at the most recent meeting last Monday when S1 Engineering director Paul Lee met Mr Loke and MOM officers.

Mr Loke has filed a police report with regard to this incident.

However, the issue of unpaid salaries remains and the Bangladeshi workers, who still have no jobs, are tired of sitting around waiting.

Mr Md Monir Hossain Abdul Jabbar, 34, said he had tried calling his employers to ask for an explanation but could not contact them on their mobiles.

‘They said two weeks. But now there is still no pay. Everyone is very angry,’ he told The Straits Times.

I’m very puzzled by what’s happening to my nephew. Maybe you or your readers could enlighten me. Thanks.

Why upgrade?

I have a nephew who is schooling. He is worried that he might not be able do well or even pass if he does not perform well enough. His teachers have urged him to upgrade his skills.

While I am grateful that there are wise teachers to spur my nephew on, I have to confess that I am not fully able to make sense of what the teachers are saying. My nephew told me that he wanted to upgrade himself by getting a private tutor. He said that not everyone can pass, not to mention score As, and he needs to remain competitive to get his hands on the coveted grade.

I have my reservations though. This is because all the students in my nephew’s school can go for skills upgrade. Yet, the number of As that the school awards does not change. (The school sets a cap on the number of As given out per assessment so as to artificially prevent grade inflation, not unlike the practice of certain universities.) As far as I can see, the number of As will not change even if the kids upgrade their skills beyond their years. The competition becomes senseless. If none of the students go for skills upgrade, a certain percentage of them would score As. Even when all of them go for skills upgrade, the percentage of students scoring As does not change, even though it might now be different people scoring the As. As the grade distribution does not change, the situation in the school at the macro level remains the same except that more and more is being expected of students who end up trying to outdo one another in ridiculous ways to get the desired grade.

My nephew in primary school now wants me to teach him Calculus so that he can upgrade himself and not fall out of the league of A-students.

Dear See Nao,

I think your nephew has just been BS-ed. Why don’t you get him enrolled in another school where he can already be confident that he would score well, and which would give him opportunities to realize his talents not so that he can maintain his As, but so that both the school and the student would benefit?

Molly

For example, one point in Fallout 3, you are presented with the opportunity to help the aptly-named town of Megaton disarm its blind nuclear bomb situated right in the heart of the town. Or if you are feeling diabolical and choose to blow every bugger to kingdom come, you could also do so. It’s so easy peasy flicking the switch and watch the horizon burn in a colossal mushroom cloud. This is what sets apart this massively brilliant RPG game from the rest of its kind. The karma system makes the game interesting and sets the tone how you achieve your objectives by the game’s end.

In this game, players are thrust into a futuristic world, still locked in the 50s, where nuclear wars have lay waste America into an apocalyptic wasteland. The iconic theme with its music and imagery makes the game strangely poignant as you tread the ruins of Washington DC, listening to your Pip-Boy built-in radio. For the patriotic, you can listen to the Enclave Radio and celebrate each time you sent the Super Mutants to their maker with the game’s monaural rendition Stars and Stripes Forever. There is no other way how you can do best to celebrate in my opinion. Just don’t listen too much to President John Henry Eden- he can be quite annoying at times.

As your character, you were born and raised in a nuclear bomb shelter or Vault by your doctor father, voiced by the incredible Liam Neeson. When he escaped the Vault on one fine morning while you were probably busy dreaming something kinky, you decided to follow on his footsteps and seek out your missing old man. Here the game begins and the game is, my word, astonishingly huge.

Throughout your quest, you will encounter friendly non-playable characters that can offer companionship such as a loyal dog and enemies like the hideous Super Mutants, pesky raiders, rake-thin zombies and expletive-spewing kids who would call you names no one has ever done before. And yes, this game is rated mature and you will do good by keeping the controller away from your own kids. The gore are explicit too, thanks to the myriad of weapons at your disposal that you can use to solve your problems.

Fallout 3 is a wholly entertaining game which will give its players enormous game time and replay value. The graphics are good though are some glitches here and there but that should not stop RPG-buffs from playing this game. The sound direction is just right, toning the post-nuclear wastelands rather well. The PS3 version, in my opinion is just as good as the XBOX 360 although I would recommend to play this game on your PC or MAC (bootcamp that is) to enjoy the many mods Fallout 3 community has to offer.

Fallout 3 is the best RPG the genre has to offer, it should not be missed, come hell or high water.

Rating: 4 out of 5 stars
Graphics: 4 out of 5 stars
Sound: 4 out of 5 stars