Two major issues surrounding the Rule of Law in Singapore, listed below, are continually being raised in the mainstream press. In my opinion, they are cause for concern, because they reflect ambiguities and misconceptions about the Rule of Law that if left unchecked could lead to abuse of power by the Executive.
Issue 1: Should human rights considerations influence the law?
Contrary to what Attorney-General Walter Woon has suggested in the past, human rights considerations, in my opinion, should have great influence on the law.
Section 377A of the penal code, which criminalizes sex between two consenting males, is one good example of the law directly impacting human rights. You cannot ignore the human rights dimension when you are speaking about issues such as discrimination and the right to privacy — issues that Section 377A indirectly touches on. Section 377A declares that the legality of a sex act is dependent on the gender of the persons involved. This, in my view, is an absurd notion fit for an archaic time when slavery was still practised in the Western world, not for the 21st Century when mankind can fit a billion transistors into microchip and send unmanned vehicles to the furthest reaches of the solar system.
In an article published in TODAY newspaper on 08 Sept entitled “Why keep such an archaic statute when there’s no intention to prosecute?”, Ho Kwon Ping says, “There is a difference between (gays) being tolerated because gays are seen to be at the leading edge of the ‘creative class’ — which Singapore is trying to develop as part of its new knowledge-based, creativity-oriented economy — and being accepted because of the recognition that fundamental human rights and the dignity of the individual extends to gays as much as to anyone else.”
Issue 2: Is it mockery of the Law to keep a rule with no intention to prosecute?
Besides Section 377A, some laws governing online political content created by non-partisan individuals fall into this category as well. These issues were discussed at length in the paper submitted by the Bloggers 13 group to MICA in April earlier this year, and also addressed by the recent AIMS report.
My answer to this question is a firm YES. It is both a mockery of the Law to keep rules that are merely symbolic, as a method of intimidation, as a token gesture that is only meant to pander to the so-called conservative segment of society.
In the TODAY article, Ho Kwon Ping writes, “To those who believe that the non-persecution of gays is already something to be grateful for, one could argue that allowing a black person to sit in the front of the bus while legally forbidding it, is something to be grateful for. Or, in an analogy closer to home for the supposedly homophobic heartlanders, should a Chinese person be grateful if the edict forbidding Chinese and dogs to enter parks in Shanghai in the ’20s were relaxed in reality, but maintained in the law? … … to criminalise gay sex and, in the same breath, state that anyone breaching this law will not be prosecuted, makes a mockery of the Rule of Law.”
In reality, certain laws and statutes are retained by the Executive so that it can selectively apply them to suppress political dissent. Such laws clearly serve only the interests of those in power, and not the general public. Examples of such laws were discussed in detail in the Proposals for Internet Freedom submitted by the Bloggers 13 group.
Issue 1: Should human rights considerations influence the law?
Contrary to what Attorney-General Walter Woon has suggested in the past, human rights considerations, in my opinion, should have great influence on the law.
Section 377A of the penal code, which criminalizes sex between two consenting males, is one good example of the law directly impacting human rights. You cannot ignore the human rights dimension when you are speaking about issues such as discrimination and the right to privacy — issues that Section 377A indirectly touches on. Section 377A declares that the legality of a sex act is dependent on the gender of the persons involved. This, in my view, is an absurd notion fit for an archaic time when slavery was still practised in the Western world, not for the 21st Century when mankind can fit a billion transistors into microchip and send unmanned vehicles to the furthest reaches of the solar system.
In an article published in TODAY newspaper on 08 Sept entitled “Why keep such an archaic statute when there’s no intention to prosecute?”, Ho Kwon Ping says, “There is a difference between (gays) being tolerated because gays are seen to be at the leading edge of the ‘creative class’ — which Singapore is trying to develop as part of its new knowledge-based, creativity-oriented economy — and being accepted because of the recognition that fundamental human rights and the dignity of the individual extends to gays as much as to anyone else.”
Issue 2: Is it mockery of the Law to keep a rule with no intention to prosecute?
Besides Section 377A, some laws governing online political content created by non-partisan individuals fall into this category as well. These issues were discussed at length in the paper submitted by the Bloggers 13 group to MICA in April earlier this year, and also addressed by the recent AIMS report.
My answer to this question is a firm YES. It is both a mockery of the Law to keep rules that are merely symbolic, as a method of intimidation, as a token gesture that is only meant to pander to the so-called conservative segment of society.
In the TODAY article, Ho Kwon Ping writes, “To those who believe that the non-persecution of gays is already something to be grateful for, one could argue that allowing a black person to sit in the front of the bus while legally forbidding it, is something to be grateful for. Or, in an analogy closer to home for the supposedly homophobic heartlanders, should a Chinese person be grateful if the edict forbidding Chinese and dogs to enter parks in Shanghai in the ’20s were relaxed in reality, but maintained in the law? … … to criminalise gay sex and, in the same breath, state that anyone breaching this law will not be prosecuted, makes a mockery of the Rule of Law.”
In reality, certain laws and statutes are retained by the Executive so that it can selectively apply them to suppress political dissent. Such laws clearly serve only the interests of those in power, and not the general public. Examples of such laws were discussed in detail in the Proposals for Internet Freedom submitted by the Bloggers 13 group.
