Singapore Law Society: A Crippled Tiger?
Imagine what persuasive power it could yield in challenging bills and acts? The recent law on “moving on” arrest powers is an example. What if the Law Society habitually takes more interest in such topics?
Co-opt, control or even coerce, baring the overlaps, is how governments, here and elsewhere, conduct their business of politics, and sometimes also the politics of business. As far as the Law Society of Singapore is concerned, the government seems contented in controlling it as pressure group, rather than co-opting it en masse like the media. By co-opting, it makes the Law Society just as culpable as the government when there is political unpleasantness looming. It is “soft” rather than “hard” power. As this TOC article explores, outright control like the Law Ministry’s appointment of the Law Society’s exco only does more damage to the government’s image. Or is it that the Law Society is allowed to be seen as supposedly independent to show that there is space for (toothless) dissent in Singapore still.
Assertions are ‘untenable’
Law Minister responds to comments by Law Society president
Tuesday • January 20, 2009
Ansley Ng
ansley@mediacorp.com.sg
SINGAPORE lacks detailed statistics on crime and punishment? How about the recidivism, or crime relapse, rate of 24.2 percent — “one of the lowest in the world” — Law Minister K Shanmugam offered yesterday in Parliament.
It is a measure of how, while the Government takes a tough stand on crime, it believes in compassion and rehabilitation, said Mr Shanmugam, in a rebuttal to “assertions” made by Law Society president Michael Hwang.
The latter had written in the Law Gazette that the Singapore system lacks a “principled and transparent” policy in punishing crimes, which is reflected in the lack of data in this area.
But Mr Shanmugam, who questioned Mr Hwang for not specifying which data he was referring to, disputed these “untenable” comments.
The Minister said that law enforcement agencies do publish crime and drug offence statistics regularly, while departments in the Home Affairs Ministry undertake research, “often in collaboration with independent researchers”, and also offer assistance to researchers, including students.
There have been several papers written by researchers allowed into the prisons to interview offenders. In 2007, the Prisons Department worked with the National University of Singapore to study the needs of aftercare services for ex-offenders and their families.
Last year, it worked with the University of South Australia to gauge the effectiveness of treatment programmes conducted by the prison service.
Non-constituency Member of Parliament Sylvia Lim, however, asked why she was told that the ethnic composition within Singapore’s penal institutions could not be revealed publicly, in response to her parliamentary question in 2007.
Mr Hwang had also alluded to ethnic data in his article.
Mr Shanmugam replied, “How in the world would publishing details on ethnic composition on an aggregated basis help in such penological research?
“If anyone wanted to do a study … the number of prisoners by ethnicity would be made available and they can go down and do their research,” he said. “But it’s an entirely separate question as to whether these have to be published as a matter of general practice. It sometimes could lead to a misinterpretation of data.”
The Minister told the media later that the relationship with the Law Society has always been “constructive and professional”.
“(But) sound bites and sweeping statements which are contrary to the facts and which show a basic lack of understanding over our criminal laws and procedure and approach to sentencing is not really constructive or helpful,” he said.
Where are the statistics?’
Law Society head criticises Government for lack of detail, Law Minister to respond on Monday
Weekend • January 17, 2009
Derrick A Paulo
derrick@mediacorp.com.sg
LAW Society president Michael Hwang has criticised the Singapore system for “lacking a principled and transparent” policy in punishing crimes.
For example, the Government “has not published detailed statistics of crime and punishment so that social scientists can undertake adequate research on the causes of crime and the effects of current penal policies on prisoners”, especially repeat offenders.
As a result, the local law schools “barely cover the study of criminology”. There is “even less” focus on “the more important study” of the punishment of crime, he wrote in his latest monthly message to the legal fraternity. According to Mr Hwang, a SeniorCounsel, one “traditional justification” for the lack of such statistics is that “these are sensitive figures”.
This, he said in this month’s issue of the Law Gazette, “could be interpreted as indicating that certain communities might be more prone to commit certain crimes”.
“But we cannot continue to put our heads in the sand and hide important social facts which need serious study by objective scholars in order to improve our society,” he said.
On Monday, his message will be discussed in Parliament after a parliamentary question was filed by MP Lim Biow Chuan (Marine Parade) on whether there is a need to review Singapore’s penal policy in the light of Mr Hwang’s statements.
Mr Lim, a lawyer, told Weekend Today that to say Singapore lacks a clear policy is a “very wide statement to make”. He said: “As president of the Law Society,Mr Hwang’s words carry a lot of weight … To me, it’s important enough for the Minister to give his views on whether he agrees with them.
Law Minister K Shanmugam will reply on Monday.
In his message, the second in a two-part series on crime and punishment, Mr Hwangalso said that “rigorous” research is needed to tackle issues such as whether the death penalty is effective in preventing murder and other capital crimes, or if corporal punishment (caning) is an effective deterrent against crimes for which it is imposed as a penalty.
The question of effective deterrence should also be asked of “strict liability” offences, which refer to “offences that do not require a guilty mind on the part of the accused”, Mr Hwang, 65, explained to Weekend Today .
He gave the example of customs offences and how some individuals might not know what to declare.
“There’s always an argument about customs offences,” he said.
Another possibility he raised was on whether Singapore should follow the United Kingdom in adopting “indeterminate sentences” for certain offences to incentivise offenders.
“So, you give a person a jail term of not less than X years and not more than Y years, and how long it actually is depends on the assessment of rehabilitation,”Mr Hwang argued.
A Protest Misfired
Yesterday, Seelan Palay and Chong Kai Xiong were arrested for protesting outside the Ministry of Manpower. It was the usual scene acted out, but this time instead of SDP Chee Soon Juan and SDP members being those arrested, it was his friends and familiar faces to the civil disobedience game show.
The storyline is getting stale actually. Whenever SDP and its affiliates make their move, the police would react by arresting them. From the Four Person CPF Protest to the Tak Boleh Tahan protest to yesterday’s MOM arrest, the police would swoop in regardless of the number of activists. Nevertheless, this MOM protest was slightly different under the surface.
The CPF and Tak Boleh Tahan protests were concerned with the plight of Singaporeans. But the MOM protest was instead a show of solidarity with the Burmese activists who are being shipped out of Singapore for their protests here against the Burmese junta in 2007. Herein lies the calculated tactical risk that might not reap the expected returns for the civil disobedience activists.
With unemployment, high cost of living, a senior civil servant showing that he is redundant by playing French chef for weeks, amongst other pressing worries brought about by the economic crisis, the two activists chose to protest the treatment of foreigners rather than their staple fare, to be a voice for Singaporeans.
Objectively, the civil disobedience faction shaped by SDP already does not seem to have a huge support base in comparison to the turn-out at Hong Lim Park whenever Tan Kin Lian takes the stand. This sort of misguided or rather badly timed support of Burmese civil disobedience activists only makes Seelan and company miss their mark even more when Singaporeans are xenophobic about foreigners from China, India, Burma or whereever who are working here and taking away jobs from heartlanders.
Two activists arrested for protesting at MOM
Tuesday January 13, 2009 Today
TWO Singaporean activists were arrested yesterday after they staged a protest :at the Ministry of Manpower (MOM) against the non-renewal of work permits of several Myanmar nationals.
In a statement, the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) said Mr Seelan Palay and Mr Chong Kai Xiong had entered the premises at around noon and “repeatedly defied orders” from MOM’s security personnel to leave. The duo was then arrested. Police are investigating them for criminal trespass; they have been released on bail.
The pair are no strangers to protests here. Both have taken part in protests organised by the Singapore Democratic Party (SDP) and have had brushes with the law.
They have been arrested previously for protesting against rising consumer prices outside Parliament and also for protests linked to the 2006 International Monetary Fund and World Bank meetings here.
In January last year, Mr Palay also held a fast outside the Malaysian High Commission here in support of five detained Hindu Rights Action Force (Hindraf) leaders, while Mr Chong has taken part in May Day and World Press Freedom Day protests.
Yesterday, the pair was protesting in support of two Myanmar nationals,Mr Moe Kyaw Thu andMr Win Kyaw, whose work permits have reportedly not been renewed.
The Myanmar pair were among a group of 40 who took part in a protest against their country’s ruling junta during the Asean Summit here in November 2007.
In response to media queries, the MHA said Myanmar nationals are welcomed to work, study or reside here. They “are also free to organise and express their political views” if pursued within Singapore’s laws.
But the MHA noted that “a handful” of Myanmar nationals here have “decided not to observe this basic obligation”, and have shown in their actions and attitude “a wilful disregard and contempt for the law and the Singapore authorities”.
“In fact, some of them who have acted in this manner, notwithstanding their having benefited from education subsidies and the hospitality of Singaporeans, even demand the right to stay in Singapore as if it is a matter of their personal entitlement,” said the MHA.
“They threaten to lobby political pressure through the media and agitate foreign public opinion against the authorities so as to compel them to concede to their demands. These persons are not welcomed in Singapore. They should leave Singapore once their existing passes expire.”
The Ministry reiterated that Singapore’s laws “apply equally to every person”. “No one is allowed to break the law with impunity regardless of how morally superior he thinks his cause is,” it added.
Who is Lee Wei Ling
The answer is obvious if you are talking about who her family members are. But is her identity anchored to who her dad and brothers are?
As time goes by, Lee Wei Ling appears more and more in the media with her frank and relatively balanced insights. Her father and brother are typecast already and whatever they say is clouded as politically biased. I always wondered if she is the unofficial moral signpost for the Lees on social issues from thrift (below) to being egalitarian to her critique of Singapore’s biomedical industry under Philip Yeo’s watch. Even if she is, does it matter? Do we judge the message or the messenger?
Lee Wei Ling: My house is shabby, but it is comfortable
Written by Lee Wei Ling, for the Sunday Times, 04 Jan 2009
ST link
In 2007, in an end-of-year message to the staff of the National Neuroscience Institute, I wrote: ‘Whilst boom time in the public sector is never as booming as in the private sector, let us not forget that boom time is eventually followed by slump time. Slump time in the public sector is always less painful compared to the private sector.’
Slump time has arrived with a bang.
While I worry about the poorer Singaporeans who will be hit hard, perhaps this recession has come at an opportune time for many of us. It will give us an incentive to reconsider our priorities in life.
Decades of the good life have made us soft. The wealthy especially, but also the middle class in Singapore, have had it so good for so long, what they once considered luxuries, they now think of as necessities.
A mobile phone, for instance, is now a statement about who you are, not just a piece of equipment for communication. Hence many people buy the latest model though their existing mobile phones are still in perfect working order.
A Mercedes-Benz is no longer adequate as a status symbol. For millionaires who wish to show the world they have taste, a Ferrari or a Porsche is deemed more appropriate.
The same attitude influences the choice of attire and accessories. I still find it hard to believe that there are people carrying handbags that cost more than thrice the monthly income of a bus driver, and many more times that of the foreign worker labouring in the hot sun, risking his life to construct luxury condominiums he will never have a chance to live in.
The media encourages and amplifies this ostentatious consumption. Perhaps it is good to encourage people to spend more because this will prevent the recession from getting worse. I am not an economist, but wasn’t that the root cause of the current crisis – Americans spending more than they could afford to?
I am not a particularly spiritual person. I don’t believe in the supernatural and I don’t think I have a soul that will survive my death. But as I view the crass materialism around me, I am reminded of what my mother once told me: ‘Suffering and deprivation is good for the soul.’
My family is not poor, but we have been brought up to be frugal. My parents and I live in the same house that my paternal grandparents and their children moved into after World War II in 1945. It is a big house by today’s standards, but it is simple – in fact, almost to the point of being shabby.
Those who see it for the first time are astonished that Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew’s home is so humble. But it is a comfortable house, a home we have got used to. Though it does look shabby compared to the new mansions on our street, we are not bothered by the comparison.
Most of the world and much of Singapore will lament the economic downturn. We have been told to tighten our belts. There will undoubtedly be suffering, which we must try our best to ameliorate.
But I personally think the hard times will hold a timely lesson for many Singaporeans, especially those born after 1970 who have never lived through difficult times.
No matter how poor you are in Singapore, the authorities and social groups do try to ensure you have shelter and food. Nobody starves in Singapore.
Many of those who are currently living in mansions and enjoying a luxurious lifestyle will probably still be able to do so, even if they might have to downgrade from wines costing $20,000 a bottle to $10,000 a bottle. They would hardly notice the difference.
Being wealthy is not a sin. It cannot be in a capitalist market economy. Enjoying the fruits of one’s own labour is one’s prerogative and I have no right to chastise those who choose to live luxuriously.
But if one is blinded by materialism, there would be no end to wanting and hankering. After the Ferrari, what next? An Aston Martin? After the Hermes Birkin handbag, what can one upgrade to?
Neither an Aston Martin nor an Hermes Birkin can make us truly happy or contented. They are like dust, a fog obscuring the true meaning of life, and can be blown away in the twinkling of an eye.
When the end approaches and we look back on our lives, will we regret the latest mobile phone or luxury car that we did not acquire? Or would we prefer to die at peace with ourselves, knowing that we have lived lives filled with love, friendship and goodwill, that we have helped some of our fellow voyagers along the way and that we have tried our best to leave this world a slightly better place than how we found it?
We know which is the correct choice – and it is within our power to make that choice.
In this new year, burdened as it is with the problems of the year that has just ended, let us again try to choose wisely.
To a considerable degree, our happiness is within our own control, and we should not follow the herd blindly.
The writer is director of the National Neuroscience Institute.
