http://yawningbread.wordpress.com/2...tarian-rule-of-law-by-jothie-rajah/#more-9377
Four and a half examples
The ‘meat’ in the book is a detailed study revolving around four key pieces of legislation: the Vandalism Act 1966, the Newspaper and Printing Presses Act 1974, the Legal Profession (Amendment) Act 1986 and the Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act 1991. There is also a brief discussion of the Public Order Act 2009, but by the time Rajah reaches this law, the objectives and strategies employed by the PAP government have become so familiar from the earlier examples, there is really nothing new left to be said.
The objectives of each of these pieces of legislation are strikingly similar. In each case, the law followed closely the rise of a new political challenge, and was designed to squash it.
That the Vandalism Act was aimed at Barisan Socialis’ street messaging has already been discussed.
The Newspaper and Printing Presses Act 1974 was aimed at securing control of the print media after the Chinese-language newspaper Nanyang Siang Pau began to voice the disaffection of the Chinese-educated. This statute too was presaged by detentions under the Internal Security Act; four executives of the newspaper were arrested on 2 May 1971 and held without trial.
The Legal Profession (Amendment) Act followed the Law Society’s criticism of the government’s attempt to extend controls to foreign media.
The Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act 1991 followed the 1987/1988 detentions of social justice activists who had the support of the Catholic Church. While the government could deal with the activists through detention without trial, it needed a less blunt, preventative instrument to deal with any religious group wanting to act on its conscience.
Finally, the Public Order Act 2009 was meant to shut down the tiny streetside protests of opposition leader Chee Soon Juan, who was gaining (foreign) media attention this way.
Strategies
What strategies were employed by the PAP to get such illiberal legislation passed and yet maintain legitimacy? Rajah’s analysis of this question is particularly illuminating, if not entirely new. In the lead-up to each of these pieces of legislation, she found a discourse heavy with these devices:
Regularly deployed is the language of exceptional national vulnerability, used to legitimise exceptional measures that depart from norms of rule of law. The threat of communism was one, used not only in the 1960s but as late as in 1987 when the Soviet Union was on its last legs and China had turned Dengist. The “hyperbolic narratives of violence” (page 270) along faultlines of race and religion is another one that is constantly played up. It is still in use today. As well, there are assertions of perpetual economic danger.
Secondly, the actors targetted for silencing are demonised, their activities cast as being anti-national. Over time, and coupled with allegations that their activities exposed Singapore to the exceptional vulnerabilities mentioned above, anti-PAP has become reflexively seen as anti-Singapore. This demonisation is carried out through ministerial statements, dutifully printed by an emasculated press, and through performative theatre such as inquisitorial Select Committee hearings, and scripted TV interviews of detainees.
Thirdly, Rajah finds from the historical record a persistent language of infantilisation. The PAP tends to speak of citizens as incapable of absorbing the full facts or understanding the issues thoroughly. This is coupled with language that casts the PAP as protective. The result is a demand for or appeal to trust. One example she drew was from the 1987 detentions leading up to the Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act.
Significantly, the state’s account of the ‘conspiracy’ was rarely clear about the precise nature of the activities of the Catholics it detained. Instead, the focus was on the threat to the ‘nation’ that had been averted and the need for citizens to submit themselves to the state’s authority. . . . at no point in the speech did Goh [Chok Tong] address the basic question of what the ‘conspirators’ actually did that so imperilled the ‘nation’.
– ibid, page 228.
Just as interesting is how cabinet ministers also deployed performance. In public statements following the 1987 arrests, they said the Internal Security Department had investigated those unspecified activities and
[Goh] then positions himself himself as a member of the ruling elite and presents the state’s good faith in responsibly arriving at the decision to order the ISD action: “We asked many questions. We wanted to be very sure that the conspiratorial activities . . . were indeed prejudicial to the security of Singapore . . . All of us were satisfied”.
– ibid, page 230.
The above conjures a picture of rule-of-law processes (checks and questioning) when the whole affair was anything but.
Four and a half examples
The ‘meat’ in the book is a detailed study revolving around four key pieces of legislation: the Vandalism Act 1966, the Newspaper and Printing Presses Act 1974, the Legal Profession (Amendment) Act 1986 and the Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act 1991. There is also a brief discussion of the Public Order Act 2009, but by the time Rajah reaches this law, the objectives and strategies employed by the PAP government have become so familiar from the earlier examples, there is really nothing new left to be said.
The objectives of each of these pieces of legislation are strikingly similar. In each case, the law followed closely the rise of a new political challenge, and was designed to squash it.
That the Vandalism Act was aimed at Barisan Socialis’ street messaging has already been discussed.
The Newspaper and Printing Presses Act 1974 was aimed at securing control of the print media after the Chinese-language newspaper Nanyang Siang Pau began to voice the disaffection of the Chinese-educated. This statute too was presaged by detentions under the Internal Security Act; four executives of the newspaper were arrested on 2 May 1971 and held without trial.
The Legal Profession (Amendment) Act followed the Law Society’s criticism of the government’s attempt to extend controls to foreign media.
The Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act 1991 followed the 1987/1988 detentions of social justice activists who had the support of the Catholic Church. While the government could deal with the activists through detention without trial, it needed a less blunt, preventative instrument to deal with any religious group wanting to act on its conscience.
Finally, the Public Order Act 2009 was meant to shut down the tiny streetside protests of opposition leader Chee Soon Juan, who was gaining (foreign) media attention this way.
Strategies
What strategies were employed by the PAP to get such illiberal legislation passed and yet maintain legitimacy? Rajah’s analysis of this question is particularly illuminating, if not entirely new. In the lead-up to each of these pieces of legislation, she found a discourse heavy with these devices:
Regularly deployed is the language of exceptional national vulnerability, used to legitimise exceptional measures that depart from norms of rule of law. The threat of communism was one, used not only in the 1960s but as late as in 1987 when the Soviet Union was on its last legs and China had turned Dengist. The “hyperbolic narratives of violence” (page 270) along faultlines of race and religion is another one that is constantly played up. It is still in use today. As well, there are assertions of perpetual economic danger.
Secondly, the actors targetted for silencing are demonised, their activities cast as being anti-national. Over time, and coupled with allegations that their activities exposed Singapore to the exceptional vulnerabilities mentioned above, anti-PAP has become reflexively seen as anti-Singapore. This demonisation is carried out through ministerial statements, dutifully printed by an emasculated press, and through performative theatre such as inquisitorial Select Committee hearings, and scripted TV interviews of detainees.
Thirdly, Rajah finds from the historical record a persistent language of infantilisation. The PAP tends to speak of citizens as incapable of absorbing the full facts or understanding the issues thoroughly. This is coupled with language that casts the PAP as protective. The result is a demand for or appeal to trust. One example she drew was from the 1987 detentions leading up to the Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act.
Significantly, the state’s account of the ‘conspiracy’ was rarely clear about the precise nature of the activities of the Catholics it detained. Instead, the focus was on the threat to the ‘nation’ that had been averted and the need for citizens to submit themselves to the state’s authority. . . . at no point in the speech did Goh [Chok Tong] address the basic question of what the ‘conspirators’ actually did that so imperilled the ‘nation’.
– ibid, page 228.
Just as interesting is how cabinet ministers also deployed performance. In public statements following the 1987 arrests, they said the Internal Security Department had investigated those unspecified activities and
[Goh] then positions himself himself as a member of the ruling elite and presents the state’s good faith in responsibly arriving at the decision to order the ISD action: “We asked many questions. We wanted to be very sure that the conspiratorial activities . . . were indeed prejudicial to the security of Singapore . . . All of us were satisfied”.
– ibid, page 230.
The above conjures a picture of rule-of-law processes (checks and questioning) when the whole affair was anything but.
Last edited:
