Singapore’s Human Rights Record

I decided to put this entry in to hopefully help some people see that Singapore is not as "bad" in the Human Rights sense as we are made out to be. I'm sure that will by no means end the debate, but I hope that these things would be borne in mind by those who seek to criticise the laws and policies have we have in place.

In a number of cross-country comparisons on human rights compliance and governance, Singapore’s human rights record, not surprisingly, is toward the middle of the spectrum among Asian countries[i]. Singapore has not seen mass killings or widespread disappearances. There has been no dictatorial regime involved in curtailing the right of its citizenry to vote. There is also no parallel in Singapore’s history, despite the racial problems during its early years, of genocidal incidents or ethnic cleansing in East Timor and Cambodia under the Khmer Rouge. Singapore has also never experienced anything resembling the use of military force like the June 4 killings in Tiananmen Square and other parts of China or Bangkok in 1992. In fact, Singapore has not been among the marked and gross abusers of human rights, reviled at the United Nations.

With regards to the rule of law, Singapore's legal system is largely noted for its transparency and fairness, especially in matters of business and commerce. The concept of legality is well-entrenched. Order is imposed resulting in lower crime rates than are found in many of the Western democracies. Laws are been enforced even against those in positions of authority. As mentioned above, Singapore has been ranked the least corrupt country in Asia. Allied to this is Singapore's palpable progress in securing economic and social rights – education, housing, health care, incomes, and opportunity have all seen marked improvement since independence[ii].

The suggestion that Singapore’s approach involves a barter of rights for prosperity, the "trade-off" hypothesis, is an over-simplification. The evidence shows that no such trade-off exists, both social and economic rights and civil and political rights have grown over the last twenty years. The two sets of rights were used in conjunction to promote development. The PAP government has continually and effectively provided economic goods and social justice while consistently maintaining the popular vote. In the area of minority rights, because Malays were disproportionately represented among lower-income Singaporeans, the government recognised their special position in the Constitution, targeted their economic advancement, and entrenched their rights of political participation and representation by legislation.

All these factors suggests the following cycle: the PAP government worked to achieve prosperity and fulfill social and economic rights in order to gain political support; this increased political support and votes then returned them to office and strengthened their mandate and ability to make further reform and progress possible[iii]. The interplay between civil and political rights on one hand and social and economic rights on the other, was not a trade-off but rather a reinforcing cycle[iv]. A strong state emerged, able to implement many policies effectively and legitimately, without widespread use of force[v].

On these bases, the differences between Singapore – as an example of the Asian view (I shall leave this topic for another post because of the space and time constraints) – and Western democracies, who hold the dominant view, do not appear very great, despite the constant rhetoric of Singaporean spokesmen placing the nation alongside countries such as China in a stand-off against the Western dominant view. The reality of its record is, however, quite a different picture: Singapore stands very close to the midpoint.

Although there are still many areas where Singapore could improve on their human rights practices, one has to constantly bear in mind that the claims and aims of human rights and of democracy are high; higher than any nation has reached in reality. After all, the whole point of setting such goals is to encourage further ambition.

------------------------------

[i] A number of cross-national comparisons support this contention. The 1992 annual Freedom House Survey on civil and political rights ranked Singapore as "partly free". On its scale of 1 to 7, Singapore scored 4. Among Asian countries, only Japan and South Korea were considered "free". The Philippines and India, although also "partly free", were rated above Singapore (reproduced in "Evolution and Implementation", supra note 8 at 3). Similar results are seen in D.K. Gupta, A.J. Jongman & A.P. Schmid, "Creating a Composite Index for Assessing Country Performance in the Field of Human Rights: Proposal for a New Methodology" (1994) 16 Hum.Rts.Q. 131. For the year 1991, the United States was rated at the top with 13.39, while Myanmar was last with 36.18. The mean score was 22.57, and Singapore was rated at 23.09, above other countries in Asia such as India, South Korea, Sri Lanka, Indonesia, and China (see ibid. at Annex 1). Chan Hang Chee reports that Singapore is given a "medium freedom" ranking, where Sweden is scored highest and Iraq is at the bottom of the list. (all these examples are cited by Tay, S.C., 1996, Human Rights, Culture, and the Singapore Example, McGill Law Journal, obtained on Westlaw).
[ii] Ibid.
[iii] Ibid.
[iv] Ibid.
[v] Ibid.

Defamation...

I read this article last night which again touches on the subject of Freedom of Expression/Speech – only as the Human Rights groups such as Liberty would have us believe. The article is about the summary judgement in the defamation suit against opposition leader Chee Soon Juan (Read the article at: http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/singaporelocalnews/view/229974/1/.html).

The government of Singapore has also been known to use the full force within the legal arsenal to silence and intimidate their political oppositions. Many of Singapore’s prominent opposition politicians have faced court fights at some point with the government or its key members. These usually take the form of defamation suits and contempt of court actions, in which the opposition has never won.

J.B. Jeyaratnam, the first elected opposition Member of Parliament, had paid out damages for libel of more than S$780,000 to former PM Lee. In 1986, he was disqualified from serving in Parliament and from standing as a candidate for five years, after he was convicted of making false statements over party accounts[i]. He was sentenced to one month’s imprisonment and a fine of S$5,000.

In 1994, Chee Soon Juan was fined S$315,000 for defaming PAP MP S. Vasoo. These were with regards to his comments concerning his dismissal as a lecturer at the National University of Singapore.

More recently, Prime Minister Goh and other PAP leaders hit Workers’ Party member Tang Liang Hong with thirteen suits over comments he had made during the election campaign. Tang fled the country saying that he feared for his life. The High Court of Singapore ordered that Tang declare assets worth S$11.2 Million to cover the damages[ii].

Even the barristers and solicitors who have accepted the responsibility of representing people detained under the ISA have undertaken considerable personal risk. Francis Seow, ex-President of the Singapore Law Society, was himself detained under the ISA for defending several of those who were accused of being part of a Marxist plot to undermine the government[iii]. Partick Seong has been followed, bugged, and harassed by the police and finally detained following his efforts to obtain the release of several ISA detainees[iv]. Jeyaretnam, who represented Tang in court, was also accused of defaming PAP leaders[v].

It seems rather unfortunate that these instances and others like them have become what Singapore is most recognized for internationally. A cursory look at the country profile listed on BBC’s website would be able to show how damaging such things seems to be in the eyes of foreign by-standers (to view the BBC’s Singapore profile go to: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/country_profiles/1143240.stm#facts ).

These instances have also caught the eye of various International Human Rights group such as Amnesty International who reports on all the examples which they regard to be questionable. Those interested to read the information on Amnesty International’s website can go to: http://web.amnesty.org/library/index/ENGASA360052001 and http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/engASA360041997?OpenDocument&of=COUNTRIES%5CSINGAPORE

It is submitted, however, that the Singapore government’s use of the law of defamation is again not uncommon among her Western counterparts. In fact the law of defamation operating to protect reputations, is recognised under ECHR Art 10(2) as being a legitimate ground for the restricting of freedom of expression. In the UK, individual politicians and office holders may sue in respect to allegations of corruption or incompetence[vi]. The Defamation Act 1996 s.13 also allows MPs to waive parliamentary privilege to enable them to sue for allegations about the performance of their parliamentary activities[vii]. In 1987, Lord Archer was awarded £500,000 for an allegation in the Daily Star that he had had sex with a prostitute[viii]. Lord Aldington was awarded damages of £1,500,000 against Count Tolstoy Miloslavsky in respect of allegations about the former’s conduct during the World War II[ix].

It is further submitted that perhaps the reason for the Singapore government’s vigour in pursuing legal action against opposition politicians and members the foreign press lies in the fact that it usually involves some allegation of irregularity, impropriety, or even corruption on the part of key figures in the government. This cannot be tolerated especially when one considers the fact that the PAP, by their own admission and through their policies have displayed a close affiliation with Confucian thought - the epitome of this is in Prime Minister Goh’s proclaiming that ‘Lee Kuan Yew is a modern Confucius.’[x] As such, they believe themselves to be ‘honourable men’ or ‘junzi’ who have been entrusted with the welfare of their citizens.

Another further consideration is the government’s attitude towards corruption. While Singapore was a British colony, corruption was rife. It was an accepted way of life. The PAP came into power in 1959[xi] on the promise that it would curb corruption and it set out to deliver. New laws were enacted and existing ones toughened.

In his memoirs, former Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew, explained his government’s commitment to curbing corruption thus:

“When the PAP government took office in 1959, we set out to have a clean administration. We were sickened by the greed, corruption and decadence of many Asian leaders… We had a deep sense of mission to establish a clean and effective government. When we took the oath of office at the ceremony in the city council in June 1959, we all wore white shirts and white slacks to symbolise purity and honesty in our personal behaviour and our public life… We made sure from the day we took office in June 1959 that every dollar in revenue would be properly accounted for and would reach the beneficiaries at the grass roots as one dollar, without being siphoned off along the way.”[xii]

This attitude is applied to political figures and civil servants with equal vigour. According to PERC: “All countries have laws aimed at fighting corruption, but very few governments apply such law as strictly and consistently as Singapore… Corrupt officials, particularly high-ranking ones, are dealt with in Singapore with a severity rarely seen elsewhere.”[xiii] Indeed, the following political leaders and civil servants have been investigated and prosecuted for corruption over the years[xiv]:

Wee Tong Boon, a Minister of State, was investigated in 1975 for accepting bribes from a property developer. He was originally sentenced to four years and six months imprisonment, however, this was later reduced to one year and six months.
Phey Yew Kok, a member of Parliament and prominent trade union leader, was investigated in 1979 and charged with criminal breach of trust and other offences. He is now still a fugitive.
Teh Cheang Wan, the then Minister for National Development, was investigated in 1986 for accepting bribes from two property developers. He committed suicide before he could be charged.
Glen Jeyasingam Knight, a senior state counsel and the director of the Commercial Affairs Department, was investigated in 1991 and charged for corruption and cheating. He was jailed and fined.
Yeo Seng Teck, the chief executive officer of the Trade Development Board, was investigated in 1993 and charged with corruption, cheating and forgery. He was sentenced to four years imprisonment.
Choy Hon Tim, the deputy chief executive of the Public Utilities Board (PUB), was investigated in 1995 and charged for accepting bribes from PUB contractors. He was sentenced to fourteen years imprisonment.

This continued attitude towards corruption has led to Singapore being ranked the least corrupt country in Asia according to annual surveys conducted by Transparency International and the Hong Kong based PERC from 1995 – 2002. In light of these facts, it is not surprising at all the Singapore government has taken such a hard-line approach towards the audacity or stupidity of those who make what the government considers to be defamatory statement made against them.

-----------------------------------

[i] Ng, R., 1997, Culture and Human Rights: An Empirical Study, final year LLB thesis at the National University of Singapore (obtained at the National University of Singapore’s Law Library), 12-13.
[ii] Ibid., 14.
[iii] Jaudel, E., Assessment of the State of Human Rights in Malaysia and Singapore from an International Perspective, A Conference organised by Kehma-s (The European Committee for Human Rights in Malaysia and Singapore) and The Rainbow Group, European Parliament, held at the European Parliament (9 & 10 March 1989). This report was obtained from the Central Library at the National University of Singapore.
[iv] Ibid.
[v] Ng, R., Op Cit., n.i, 14.
[vi] Feldman, D., 2002, Civic Liberties and Human Rights in England and Wales, Oxford, 837.
[vii] Ibid.
[viii] Ibid.
[ix] Ibid.
[x] Straits Times, 24 Apr 1990.
[xi] In fact, the PAP launched its electoral campaign by revealing that the Labour Front’s Minister for Education, Chew Swee Kee, had corruptly accepted political funds from the United States government to defeat the PAP in the 1959 elections. During the investigation, Chew admitted that he had in fact received, with his party’s knowledge, a total of S$700,000 (or US$233,000) on two occasions from the United States government. This confession effectively sealed his party’s fate and enabled the PAP to win the election.
[xii] Lee, K.Y., 2000, From Third World to First: The Singapore Story: 1965-2000, Times, 182-184.
[xiii] Quah, J.S.T., 2003, Curbing Corruption in Asia, EUP, 124.
[xiv] Ibid.

Everyone deserves a 2nd chance..

I think that this is an excellent policy/programme! Maybe the rest of you have heard about it before, but this is the first that I've heard of it (please pardon my ignorance, but I have been overseas for the most part of the last 7 years!).

Nearly 120,000 ex-offenders have their criminal records cleared since October
By Noor Mohd Aziz, Channel NewsAsia Posted: 10 September 2006 2234 hrs

SINGAPORE: 120,000 ex-offenders have had their criminal records spent since laws took effect in October last year to allow for this.

It was aimed at allowing those convicted with minor crimes to get a second chance in life.

On Sunday, some of these people were commended for turning their backs on crime and drugs.

These people have spent their time behind bars, but what's significant is that they have stayed off crime for at least three years.

At today's ceremony, more than 300 ex-offenders received certificates for throwing out their past, and forging a new life.

"I think what is important for the ex-offender to help prepare themselves for re-integration. Preparing has to do with attitude. Attitude has to change and then ultimately if the person can prove themselves, they can go back to society. We don't expect society to accept you if you are not doing anything. So I think it always first thing first. We change our attitude first and then we go back to society. When you prove yourself, I think the society will accept you," said Freddy Wee, Ex-offender, Director, Breakthrough Halfway House.

Deluge Fire Protection is one employer that is happy to give the ex-offenders a second chance.

The company has hired 30 inmates.

"'We ask ourselves, if all these offenders, they paid for all their crimes and if society do not give them an opportunity, what's going to happen to them next. Do they go back and stay there for the rest of their lives. I do not think so. On that consideration, we think, yes we can; we have the opportunities for them. Why don't we give them another chance," said AK Tan, Business Manager, Deluge Fire Protection (SEA) Pte Ltd.

At the event, Senior Minister of State for Law and Home Affairs Ho Peng Kee said family, friends and the community are crucial to helping these people get back on their feet. - CNA /dt

Civil Society Organisations striking out again...

There were somemore articles on the Channel News Asia website today about the demonstrations to be held in conjunction with the IMF/World Bank Meetings in Singapore. (Read them at: http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/singaporelocalnews/view/229590/1/.html; http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/singaporelocalnews/view/229580/1/.html)

It appears that some space has been allocated for peaceful, indoor demonstrations within Suntec City. Police report that there would be ample visibility. Also the report states that police will provide cardboard and paper roles for the demonstrators to use, in place of wooden placards and metal poles, which would not be allowed as they may pose a security risk. I think that this is a very significant gesture and should not be dismissed frivolously. However, as one would expect the reports indicate that Civil Society Organisations have expressed their disappointment with these provisions. It seems to me that irrespective of what the government or the police do to accommodate these people, they will be dissatisfied. They continually fail to consider and appreciate the logistical and security nightmare that the organisers probably have to contend with.

Well, to the organisers I say.. you can’t please everyone..

And the effort is noted and appreciated.. Kudos!

Demonstrations, Protests and Strikes

In today’s political climate, especially after September 11, the most-used (and abused) buzz word has become “Terrorism”. Everyone cannot seem to stop talking about it, and it seems that it can be applied to any situation and used to justify any/all actions no matter how extreme they may appear. I came across 3 articles on the Channel News Asia website which I thought was worthy of some comment.

The 1st is about the Police standing firm on their decision to ban those they regard as “undesirable civil society representatives” from the IMF/World Bank event currently being held in Singapore. In their statement to the public, the police say that every country has the prerogative to determine whether foreigners are eligible for entry into the country. They argue that this sort of caution is necessary under the current security environment. They add that some of these people would use this platform to stage events that might pose a security threat to Singapore and compromise the security arrangements that have been put in place (Read the article at: http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/singaporelocalnews/view/229337/1/.html).

In the 2nd article, it seems that since public protests and demonstrations are generally not allowed in Singapore, about 1000 delegates (700 Indonesian and the rest from countries like Italy, Norway, the Philippines and Tanzania - from 74 NGOs in 40 countries) from various NGOs (non-governmental organisations) from all over the world have decided to hold their events in the nearby Indonesian island of Batam. However, according to this article they have received a major setback – Batam police have official banned all such protests too! (This despite the fact that Indonesian laws do allow street protests and demonstrations provided the organisers apply for a permit 3 days in advance) What makes the situation even more ironic is the fact that about 18 Indonesian NGOs took out a half-page advertisement in a Batam daily voicing their opposition to the forum, arguing that a big gathering of NGOs activists would "undermine the investment climate on the island". I mean, its one thing to have the government or business leaders raising the concern and petition, but its quite another to have it done by those meant to be on your side! (hmmm.. I wonder whether it would cause them to rethink their methods.. nah.. I doubt it!) In the official statement, the police cited political, economic and security reasons for the ban apart from the fact that other NGOs were not in favour of the event. (Read the article yourself at: http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/singaporelocalnews/view/229205/1/.html)

The final article relates to 3 PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals) activists, an American, a Canadian woman, and a Filipino woman, being deported after it was discovered that they had been planning to conduct a naked demonstration outside a KFC restaurant in Rochor Road. They obviously did not posses a permit. In a police statement, it was revealed that the Canadian lady had previously cooped herself in a chicken cage (in a yellow bikini) in Bangkok and went topless in a KFC restaurant in Canada – all apparently meant to protest the company’s treatment of animals. Again, it was mentioned that such actions could potentially compromise the security arrangements that have been put in place for the IMF/World Bank meetings. (To read the article, go to: http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/singaporelocalnews/view/229353/1/.html)

Now, Singapore has often been accused of having a poor Human Rights record (especially when it comes to the Freedom of Expression/Speech). This is usually in relation to the laws in place to prevent demonstrations, protests and perhaps even, strikes. Although, sometimes the fear of terrorism is misused by policy makers, I must say that I personally am in favour of Singapore’s stance on the organisation of demonstrations, protests and strikes. Here are some of my views and well as experiences, I hope that it would provide some interesting reading and perhaps provoke some thought in the process.

In 1967, Parliament passed the Criminal Law (Temporary Provisions) (Amendment) Act to make it unlawful for workers to go on strike[i]. In addition, the Trade Unions (Amendment) Act 1967, the Employment Act and the Industrial Relations (Amendment) Act 1968 further weakened and disciplines the unions[ii]. The rationale for such action can be understood from the political landscape of Singapore in the 1950s and 1960s.

Capitalising on the labour disputes arising from workers’ grievances, the communists politicised the trade unions for their own political objectives, organising strikes, demonstrations other forms of stoppages. These reached endemic proportions and acted as a disincentive to foreign capital which was essential to Singapore’s survival during this time of recent independence.

There are laws in place to prevent violent and disruptive demonstrations by requiring interested parties to apply to the police for a licence. This should not be too surprising and should not cause alarm as restrictions are imposed even in countries such as the US and UK. In the UK, there are various prior restraints on processions and assemblies in public places: (1) injunctions; (2) in relation to both industrial and other demonstrations and meetings, the police have extensive powers, independently of industrial relations law, to prevent obstructions of the highway, including a power to arrest an obstructer whether or not there is any imminent risk of a breach of the peace[iii]. In relation to demonstrations, a notice must be delivered, either by recorded delivery or by hand, to a police station in the police area where the procession is to start. This is to be done at least six clear days before the date when the procession is intended to be held[iv]. Under section 13 of the Public Order Act 1986, police are empowered to prevent demonstrations from taking place. Under section 12, their powers include the power to impose conditions necessary to prevent any anticipated disorder, damage, disruption, or intimidation on public processions. Section 12(1) provides that they may include, but are not limited to, conditions as to the route of the procession, or prohibiting it from entering any specified public place[v].

Conditions as to the route to be taken, or timing, may seriously affect the impact of the procession. Feldman gives the following example: “as the Green Paper on The Public Order Act and Related Legislation pointed out, there may be circumstances in which a march to a foreign embassy is planned to protest against a country’s policy on, for example, torture or capital punishment. The point of the march would be to make the country’s diplomats aware of the strength of public feelings, so that they can inform their government. The point would be partly, if not wholly, lost if the procession had to be routed away from the embassy.[vi]” Such a situation did occur when the British Prime Minister Tony Blair visited the University of Birmingham in the wake of the Iraq war in 2003. Students were permitted to demonstrate. However, they were allocated an area which the Prime Minister did not pass and thus he would not know that such a demonstration was taking place (the only who knew about it were people like me – students – most of whom were trying to get to class and found ourselves being held up by the demonstrators obstructing the walking paths!).

The late BBC correspondent and journalist Alistair Cooke described the futility of such acts thus:

“Leftish student groups who in every war declare they are, unlike you and me, working for peace. By shouting the word often enough they hope to turn it into a reality. No work is entailed. It’s a case of what the poet William Empson called “incessant belief labouring to create its object.”” Letters from America (taken from the BBC website).

The rationale for Singapore’s law concerning strikes, demonstrations and public assemblies can also find its source again in the concept of ‘pragmatism’. Although, public demonstrations may be an important way of raising public consciousness of a cause or issue, they may potentially cause severe breaches of the peace. At the very least they may cause disruption and public inconvenience.

It is thus justifiable that freedom of expression be curtailed if it is going to cause the rest of the public significant inconvenience. I remember having a debate with one of my Italian friends while visiting her in Milan. I don’t remember exactly how the topic was raised (I do remember that it wasn’t me who brought it up) but I mentioned that strikes are illegal in Singapore. I also (perhaps foolishly) added that I agreed with such a policy. My rationale was simply that it was unreasonable for those who were unhappy with their jobs (or pay) should inconvenience and prevent others from being able to work. For example, if bus drivers or train drivers were dissatisfied with their work conditions, why it is that they feel they have to take it out on commuters trying to get to work (preventing them from getting to work on time). Wouldn’t an easier solution be that if you were unhappy with your job, you go out and get a new one? Wouldn’t that be a better display of autonomy?

Shocked, my friend declared that I was being selfish. I must say that I didn’t see that one coming – from my perspective I think that whoever decides to go on strike is the selfish one. Afterall, they are inconveniencing other people – and they do have other less disruptive options available to them. Anyways, as the story goes, the next day I was meant to return to the UK. As my friend’s sister was studying in the UK, she wanted to buy a gift for her sister. She then decided that since her sister had been away for many months, she would really appreciate an Italian newspaper. So on the way to the airport, my friend went to the local equivalent of a mama shop to buy the paper – and guess what? All the newspapers in Milan were on strike!! Hmmmm…

(I guess stirkes causing an inconvenience is one thing, but sometimes it can lead to other people losing their lives as was the case when Firemen in UK decided to go on strikes over a certain period in 2003.)

Although it is perhaps true, as Sir Robert Mark suggested in the mid-1970s, that: ‘Political demonstrations seem to give satisfaction in the main to those taking part. The public as a whole are usually not interested unless affected by inconvenience or aroused by disorder or violence[vii]. In fact, if one considers the size of the island-state of Singapore, it is no wonder that the Singapore government feels it impossible to allow strikes and demonstrations to take place – it would likely result in the crippling of the nation’s economy. Such disastrous effects on the economy would strike against the core of Singapore’s ideological foundations.

With all of this said, I think it is unfair and untrue to assert that there is no freedom of expression/speech in Singapore - that there's no way to express opposition without the fear of reprisals. Here's just one example.

In line with former Prime Minister Goh’s promise for a more “open” and “consultative” democracy, there are effective alternatives available to Singaporeans to voice their concerns and effect policy change without fear of negative repercussions. In 1984, university students in Singapore protested against the government policy, known as the “Graduate Mother Scheme,” giving privileges to women who were graduates when choosing schools for their children[viii]. Instead of holding mass rallies, the students opted to organise a petition and on-campus forums. They also associated with students from other tertiary institutions who were also against the policy. They made use of the mass media to publicise their views but refrained from taking political action to the streets. The result of these measures was that the representations were received by the government without reprisals. Furthermore, although the government did implement the policy, the Graduate Mother Scheme was abandoned shortly afterwards[ix]. A representative of the student’s union explained:

“There is no question… we should respond (to the government policy) but I would call on each of us to be responsible too: no unannounced rallies or demonstrations… We must make our point not in histrionics and polemics but calmly and firmly. Anything else will set us back.”[x]

-----------------------------------

[i] Tan, K.Y.L., 1999, Fifty Years of the UDHR: A Singaporean Reflects, Human Rights Perspectives, UNAS, 135.
[ii] Ibid.
[iii] Feldman,D., 2002, Civic Liberties and Human Rights in England and Wales, Oxford, 1061.
[iv] Ibid., 1062.
[v] Ibid., 1063.
[vi] Ibid., 1065.
[vii] Ibid., 1059.
[viii] Straits Times, 14 March 1984, “NUS Student’s Union Wants to meet Dr Tay.” The late Dr Tay was then the Minister of State for Education.
[ix] Straits Times, 26 March 1985, “Graduate Mum Scheme to Go.”
[x] Students’ Union News, Vol.2 No.12 Feb 1984, “Of Primary Concern: But Be Responsible – Says Council.”

No Horsing around when drunk...

Talk about silly and antiquated laws! This is a funny one for you..


Men charged with drunken driving . . . a horse and cartBy Alan Hamilton
The Times
September 02, 2006


William Royles has denied being drunk in charge of a horse.

THE law may be an ass, but it can still have you up before the beak for being drunk in charge of a horse. And in a bizarre coincidence, two men landed up in court yesterday charged with that offence.

William Royles, a 21-year-old traveller, was driving a carriage drawn by Dipstick, his two-year-old bay, in the dark through Gloucester when he was stopped by a police officer and a special constable for having no lights. They also charged him with being drunk.

The other man before magistrates, Adrian Whitaker, 36, tried to make his way home by horse and cart after a hard day’s drinking.

Police were alerted by motorists after he held up traffic on a country lane near Northaw, Hertfordshire. Mr Whitaker fell off the cart and landed at a policeman’s feet when he was pulled over.

He admitted being drunk in charge of a horse and cart before Central Hertfordshire magistrates and was due to be sentenced yesterday.

When Mr Royles appeared before Gloucester magistrates he was told that his trial would be postponed until next month, because the part-time special constable, who has a day job as a lecturer, had failed to turn up as a witness, pleading work commitments.

The chairman of the magistrates’ bench said that it was totally unacceptable for the special constable not to be present, but the case would still have to be put back in the interests of justice. Matthew Harbinson, representing Mr Royles, argued that it would be impossible for his client to have a fair trial without the chance to crossexamine the witness.

Mr Royles admitted the lighting offence but denied the drink-driving charge.

Mr Harbinson told the court that he had not come across such a case before, but he had looked up previous similar hearings. “According to case law, the standard of drunkenness in these circumstances is higher than that applied to motoring matters. The person must be drunk to the extent of loss of self-control.”

The 1872 Licensing Act, which featured in a recent Law Society exhibition of antiquated legislation still on the statute book, states: “Every person who is drunk while in charge on any highway or other public place, of any carriage, horse, cattle or steam engine, or who is drunk when in possession of any loaded firearms, may be apprehended and shall be liable to a penalty not exceeding level one on the standard scale, or in the discretion of the court to imprison for any term not exceeding one year.”

Mr Royles was ordered to return for a pre-trial review on September 26 and for his trial on October 27. He is not subject to bail, or any interim ban on using Dipstick.
Outside the court Mr Royles said that he had been tempted to turn up on Dipstick for the hearing, but had decided to leave him at home.

As the law relating to being drunk in charge of a horse, a cow or a steam engine on the public highway dates from 1872, it makes no mention of the breathalyser, and the charge of drunkenness rests only on the allegation of the arresting officers rather than the proof of a breath test.

Spinning the news..

I always find it very interesting how news stories get covered and the different perspectives or slants can be given to the same story by different journalists (I guess I should be very familar with this, being a lawyer and all).

I caught a story on the BBC world news on Thursday about the fact that PM Lee was in the UK and that he had met Tony Blair. It didn’t seem to be anything significant, especially to the British public, and was kind of mentioned in passing (it doesn't seem to have made it on the BBC news website even). The more important news of the day was of course the turmoil in recent days resulting from the letter sent to Tony Blair about his labour colleagues losing confidence in him and his leadership and requesting that he either step aside now or set a definite date for doing so. Yesterday he was expected to make his response.

I am kind of a Blair supporter – I do think that he’s made a significant contribution to the development of the country (although I still think that UK sucks!) and I also admire his ability to carry himself amidst difficult situations with poise and dignity. I’ll be a little sad to see him go.

But what I found interesting about the news yesterday was not how Blair handled himself, but rather how different new rooms or newspapers deal with the same piece of news. In the Singapore newspapers (well the online editions anyways – considering that that’s what I read – so I don’t know whether this applies to the print version) the report sounds like the meeting between PM Lee and PM Blair was rather significant. It was the marked the start of PM Lee’s London visit, which is scheduled to last for 3 days. Apparently they discuss a whole range of issues such as terrorism, security issues, and the situation in the Middle East. Watching the video clip of the report in Channel New Asia and the interview of PM Lee, he seemed to have a lot to say about the meeting and the issues discussed – such that you would have thought that it lasted the entire day.

However, what I found interesting is that it did not last the entire day. In fact, it didn’t even last one hour!

Yes.. It isn’t a typo..

In fact, according to the BBC report, it lasted a mere 15 minutes! By about lunchtime, Tony Blair had visited a primary school in London and issued his statement about his impending departure.

So how they did discuss so many things within all those 15 mins? When did the 15 mins begin? The video clip contains footage of them shaking hands outside Downing Street, walking in, walking through e corridors, a few more photo sessions.. How did they manage to get through all those issues (which are very big issues indeed)?

Hmmm..

Btw, if you would like to see the article and video clip for yourself: http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/singaporelocalnews/view/229055/1/.html

A Speedy Getaway..

If you have ever heard me seak about my country of residence for the last 7 years (i.e. UK for those who still didn't get it by now) you would probably have heard me complaining about the amazing inefficiency and down-right stupidity of the people there. One example is that finding loopholes in the law and taking advantage of them are extremely easy and common (as a Singaporean listening to them, it would be completely absurd). Parking tickets are often left unpaid (and I shall not say whether I paid my own fines or not) because a former Transport Minister declared on national TV that the system was in such a state that if you had abandoned your car, the registry would take about 2 years to track you down (one can only imagine their ability to manage traffic fines!!).

Anyways, here is an article on another regular occurance - speed traps - and perhaps a way to get out of paying the speed fines.. (If only Singapore was still a British colony.. If only we could be so lucky! haha)


Speed camera blues
By District Judge Stephen Gerlis
Stephen Gerlis is a district judge at Barnet County Court
THE TIMES, 20 JULY 2006


In November 2003, Christine Hamilton, wife of former cash-for-questions row MP Neil Hamilton, escaped a speeding fine by saying she couldn’t remember who was behind the wheel when her car was snapped by a speed camera doing 63 mph in a 50 mph zone. The decision gave hope to thousands of motorists who had become victims of the "happy snapper cameras" by presenting what appeared to be a defence to such offences. Concern at the decision was such that the matter was raised in Parliament, before the Select Committee on Transport no less, on the December 17, 2003, when the "Hamilton Defence" was described as a "big loophole" in the law relating to speeding.

The law has not been changed since that time but the matter did come to the recent attention of the Divisional Court of the High Court. The owner of a motorcycle raised the Hamilton Defence against a speed camera charge, saying in response to a request for details of the rider that on the day in question more than one person had been using the bike and that he required photographic evidence to help him determine who was riding the bike at the time of the offence. Such evidence was provided but he responded that it was not conclusive and that it could have been himself or "a friend" who had been using the motorcycle, and neither of them could remember who was the rider. In response to a further request for information, he finally revealed details of the identity of the "friend" but could not throw any light on who was actually riding the bike when the offence was committed.

At the hearing of the case, the "friend" did not give oral evidence as he was living abroad, but supplied a written statement that also raised doubts as to who was the rider.

When someone is caught by a speed camera, the registered owner will receive a notice of intended prosecution together with a request that the owner supplies information as to the driver of the vehicle at the time of the offence, or any information that the owner has which will lead to the identification of the driver. The information has to be supplied within 28 days of service of the notice. That was where the alleged "biker" lost out. By the time the owner had identified a possible alternative rider, the 28-day period had expired. He lost his case on that technicality. To add to his misery, the penalty for failing to supply information as to the driver is similar to that relating to the speeding offence.

However, the case did raise some interesting issues with regard to the Hamilton Defence. The court found the owner to be a credible witness: in other words, if he had responded to the form properly and in time, he might have succeeded with the defence. His only error was not providing the name of the other possible rider soon enough. The present case was distinguished from one in 2004 where the owner responded that his car could have been driven at the relevant time by any number of people because it was one of a fleet of vehicles, and he was unable to say who the driver of the vehicle was on the occasion of the offence. In that case the owner succeeded because he had replied within the 28-day time limit and had given as much information as he had in his possession. The owner of the motorbike in the present case had only identified an alternative rider after the time period had expired, even though he was aware of that information right from the start.

At the time of the hearing, the motorbike owner stated that he was sure he was not the rider of the motorbike at the time of the offence. This merely compounded his position, because if he was certain of that he should have said so in reply to the initial request for information and named the person he thought might have been the rider, within the 28-day limit.

What conclusions are to be drawn from this case as far as the Hamilton Defence is concerned? First, if the owner of a vehicle is genuinely uncertain as to who was driving it at the time of the offence, they should say so in response to the request for information, within the time limit laid down for the response, while at the same time supplying as much information as they have as to the possible driver. Secondly, such a response provides a possible defence but it is subject to being tested by the court. Raising it does not get the owner off the hook — he will still have to convince the court that he is telling the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

Judge taking the law into his own hands..

I found this rather interesting though disturbing article in the British newspaper The Times. It is almost too ridiculous to be true, but I assure you, it is true! I don't really think it requires any comment! (To see the article for yourself: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,28010-2280770,00.html)

Judge's career comes apart as he mixes business with pleasure
By David Pannick, QC
The times, july 25, 2006

LAWYERS always try to enjoy their work but former Judge Donald D. Thompson went too far. Last month he was convicted by a jury in Oklahoma on four counts of indecent exposure by surreptitiously using a penis pump in Creek County Court while sitting as a judge hearing trials in 2002 and 2003. Oh what a terrible morning in Oklahoma for the judge.

His former court reporter, Lisa Foster, wiped away tears as she gave evidence that during one of the trials, she heard the pump’s distinctive “sh-sh” sound. The judge had not chosen the most appropriate moment to take the law into his own hands: it was during the emotional testimony of the grandfather of a murdered child. Ms Foster told the jury that the grandfather “was getting real teary-eyed, and the judge was up there pumping on that pump”. It was sickening, she said. Ms Foster had made a note on the court transcript. She also alleged that during closing arguments in another trial, Thompson “shaved his scrotum” with a disposable razor. That is, I suppose, one way of indicating to counsel that it was time to move on to the next submission.
An investigation into Thompson’s conduct began after a police officer who had given evidence in the murder trial, and was puzzled by unusual noises, looked beneath the judge’s desk during the lunch break and found the device. Perhaps wisely in the circumstances, the policeman had not asked for “permission to approach the Bench” while the judge was sitting there.

The jury heard more flaccid evidence from a consultant urologist and from a man who had served as a juror in Thompson’s court who testified that he had not seen such a device other than in the film Austin Powers. There was no forensic scientific evidence, although prosecutors had taken samples from the carpet under the judge’s bench for analysis. As reported by Court TV, the white-handled sexual device sat on display in the courtroom during Judge Thompson’s trial, a silent witness to whatever indignities it had experienced, occasionally being picked up and squeezed by a lawyer eager to make a point. Both prosecution and defence counsel mimed masturbation to show the jury how the offences were committed, or could not have been committed.

Thompson, 59, had served as a district judge for 23 years. He denied the charges and claimed that the pump was a joke gift from an old friend with whom he had laughed about erectile dysfunction. He insisted that although he kept the pump under the courtroom desk or in his office, he had never used it. He conceded (and who could dispute) that “in 20-20 hindsight, I should have thrown it away”. His lawyer, Clark Brewster, said that Thompson had a collection of items, including a stress ball, a shoeshine kit and handheld games, with which “he often fiddled” during breaks in legal proceedings. The jury decided that improper fiddling had occurred.
Judge Thompson is not the first judge to be guilty of combining business with pleasure in grossly improper ways. In 1985 a New York judge was formally admonished for loudly commenting, as a female advocate entered his courtroom: “What a set of knockers!”. In 1988 the Supreme Court of California upheld an order for the removal of a judge for a number of disciplinary offences, including making sexual jokes to female attorneys appearing in his courtroom. He asked them what was the difference between a Caesar salad and a particular sexual act, and when they replied that they did not know, he responded: “Great, let’s have lunch.” In 2003 a judge in Boston, Massachusetts, considering the asylum claim of a Ugandan woman named Jane who claimed to have been tortured in her homeland, commented from the Bench before denying her application: “Jane come here. Me Tarzan.”

I can find only one precedent for the bizarre conduct of Judge Thompson. In 2003 a judge in Angoulême, in south west France, was suspended pending an investigation into allegations that he had masturbated while a lawyer made her submissions in a case involving a dispute between neighbours.

After the jury had given its verdict in the case of Judge Thompson, prosecutor Richard Smothermon said that the defendant “was at the pinnacle of the justice system in Creek County, and now that justice system has held him to the same standard”. Even legal pinnacles must observe basic proprieties.

Shakespeare wrote in his study of justice, Measure for Measure, about “man, proud man,/ Drest in a little brief authority,/ Most ignorant of what he’s most assur’d”. Judge Donald D. Thompson now awaits sentencing for being undressed while exercising his judicial authority. His trial confirms that “May it please the court” is not a defence to inappropriate sexual conduct during legal proceedings.

The author is a practising barrister at Blackstone Chambers and a Fellow of All Souls College, Oxford

You don't want your children sitting on these politicians' laps...

I recently came across an online newspaper article concerning the admission of a Paedophile political party in the Netherlands being given the green light to contest in the next General Elections (to view article: http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,,1822972,00.html) .

Although disgusted, I found myself somewhat unsurprised. Afterall, the Netherlands were the first country that I’m aware of to legalise things Marijuana smoking, Gay marriages and even Euthanasia, it seems like only a matter of time. It seemed like if it had to happen anywhere, it would happen in the Netherlands. Afterall, if I do remember correctly, there was an openly homosexual politician who almost contested in the last election! (unfortunately, he was murdered!)

Over the last few days I decided to revisit some of the papers I had written and research I had done during my days in law school ( I think that its is something worthwhile doing – revisiting my views, beginning the questioning process again, and perhaps revising some of one’s views). The one area that I had spent a significant amount of time dealing with was the subject of abortion and euthanasia. In almost every year of law school, I managed to write at least one paper which dealt in some way with that subject. In the first year, it was in relation to the Criminal Justice System. In my second year, it was in relation to Medical Law. In my final year, it was used as an example in one of my two undergraduate dissertations – incidentally on Christian Jurisprudence.

Surprisingly, I haven’t really thought about or looked into the subject since I finished my undergraduate studies – I guess I know the reasons why, but will remain undisclosed for now. However, as I began to read up and think about the subject again, which realised that although my views on abortion and euthanasia have not changed, I found myself having a little mixed feelings about whether I think the law itself should be changed.

I mean, its certainly one thing to be able to argue that something like abortion is morally wrong because one is killing either an innocent baby, its quite another to consider the implications if it were outlawed. Abortion is already legalised in most countries, and widely accepted. Supposing that Christians and other pro-life activists are able to achieve a change in the law, what can they do about the fact that a large percentage of the worldwide population do not believe that the act is immoral? And if people do not believe it to be immoral, but merely an exercise in personal autonomy or a convenient method of ridding oneself of life’s common mistakes, how are we going to prevent them from finding an alternative means to get it done? And wouldn’t it be worse if people had abortions done illegally (this would in most cases certainly be in un-sanitised conditions and therefore be even more dangerous).

Of course these questions are nothing new. There, along with many others like it, have been used time and time to justify the case for the legality (and perhaps morality) of abortion. However, I did not expect to find myself sympathetic to the course. I found myself “wanting” there to be a way in which I can reconcile the two – a way in which everything could be work perfectly. But such a thing does not exist.

As I began to ponder on it further, I began to rediscover the reasons for my convictions – Life is Sacred – and any dispatching of an innocent human life is unacceptable. If it was a genuine mistake made by two horny teenagers, then shouldn’t they learn to own up to the responsibilities and accept the consequences of their actions? If it was really the result of a rape, should the woman be allowed to take it out on another innocent human being? Afterall, being a victim of any other crime such as a robbery certainly does not give us the right to commit a criminal act against another innocent party – this is basic common sense isn’t it? Every action produces consequences, if you’ve been robbed, it is quite likely that you would sustain some form of financial hardship as a result. It obviously isn’t fair, but that’s a fact of life. If you were shot, stabbed, and raped – the consequences are physical. You didn’t ask for it, but it happened. You can’t do anything about it, and you certainly should not have the right to take it out against someone else, especially not by committing an act of violence against an innocent party!

This led me to another issue though, which was how the Christian should respond to such laws. Well, first, the easy one. If a Christian found himself/herself in such a situation, he/she should accept the responsibility to care for the child. The fact that the law allows one to have an abortion does not necessarily mean that one should exercise that legal right.

Now comes the one that is more difficult (and I must confess, the one I’m, more interested in) – should Christians canvass to have the law changed. This is where I saw the conflict remember?

On the one hand, I’m a believer that Christians would do well to stay away from politics. However, I realised that this is probably because I have noticed many Christians, especially in America, who engage in political activism and continually make a nuisance of themselves and seemingly never actually achieve anything. So many Christian organisations have been set up, demonstrations carried out and petitions raised to challenge government policies with no or limited success.

But, I then realised that its not so much the idea of Christians seeking to effect a change in the law that I was adverse to but rather the method in which it is normally carried out. Well-intentioned people often do cause the most damage.

So if Christians want to effect a change in the law, how are they to go about it? Well, I think they the first thing that we need to do is research the subject thoroughly (often times this portion is overlooked – although it is probably the most important bit!). By this I mean that we are to examine the issue in its entirety. The next thing that we need to do is remove the trappings of a religious challenge. What I mean by this is that if we cast ourselves as Christians challenging a particular law on the basis on what the Bible says, then we beg the question, what about the non-believers? Should they listen? Should they be made to submit to a God that they do not acknowledge and accept?

Don’t be too quick to say “yes”. Think about it.

It seems to me that this is one of the main reasons why Christians fail to make a successful contribution to the laws of the country in which they live and why they fail to get a fair hearing too. If we examine that argument more closely, it does begin to sound a little like an uncompromising, proud, intolerant and insolent little child who demands to get his way. Is it any wonder why they don’t listen? That they accuse Christians of being bigoted?

How do I think that a Christian should respond? I remember that this very question was what prompted me to always attempt to deal with those topics in an objective position. I never used the bible explicitly. This was not because I was ashamed of the bible, certainly not! But my rationale was that if the bible is true, then it would not be a stretch of the imagination that the available facts would support its conclusions. This provided me with the much needed common ground to engage people in an open discussion, because let’s face it – the mere mention of the bible and/or Christian is bound to make some people completely closed to anything else that proceeds from your mouth thereafter. The point of that our conclusions can and probably will be based on our Christian beliefs, but we can and probably should, use extra-biblical means when we reason with those outside the faith. Afterall, doesn’t all of nature and even the heavens declare the glory of God and the works of His hands?

I believe that this is probably the main reason why the Intelligent Design advocates are experiencing some measure of success in America. I had the opportunity to meet and speak to one of the advocates – a Christian, a highly-respected legal academic by the name of Philip E. Johnson. In his books and other writings one issues such as this, there is little, if any, reference being made to God or the bible. And this in fact, adds credibility and acceptance to their cause (which simply is that evolution cannot fully account for the existence of life and that the evidence suggests a case for an intelligent designer). Because, if I accept the evidence, I could possibly accept Intelligent Design without being a Christian – something that we Christians would do well to realise are two distinct things. If a Christian read his books, it would not be difficult at all to know where Johnson gets his inspiration and guidance – his own Christian beliefs!