|
|
|
Oct 30, 2009 NEW YORK STATE BAR ASSOCIATION DIALOGUE Singapore-style democracy Shanmugam cites US economist who sees the Republic as a challenge to time-tested models By Zakir Hussain IN CHICAGO, Democratic mayors have won without interruption since 1931. In San Francisco, they have done so since 1964. And while Democrats have not monopolised the mayor's office in New York City, they have near-PAP dominance of the city council, where they hold 45 out of 48 occupied seats. 'But nobody questions whether there is a democracy in New York,' Law Minister K. Shanmugam said on Wednesday, referring to the frequent questioning of Singapore's democratic credentials given the 50-year dominance of the ruling People's Action Party. Drawing on arguments by American economist Bryan Caplan in a recent article, he said Singapore was viewed as a deviation from the democratic norm because it was seen primarily as a country. 'This is where most people make a mistake...I have tried to explain that we are different. We are a city. We are not a country,' he told 200 lawyers, many from America, at the New York State Bar Association International Section's meeting here. Mr M. N. Krishnamani, a panellist and president of the Supreme Court of India Bar Association, asked if it was true that with the ruling PAP in power for some decades now, the opposition was unable to survive or win cases in the courts. Mr Shanmugam anticipated such a question and came prepared with Dr Caplan's article, published in July. Reading extracts, he told his audience it was the best response he could provide to the question. In the article, Dr Caplan said Singapore had two puzzling features. It adopted economically efficient yet politically unpopular policies that would easily cost politicians elsewhere their jobs; and it was effectively a one-party state despite being a parliamentary democracy. But he said that the legal opposition parties here 'hardly live in mortal fear of the PAP'. 'Pressure from the dominant party is a feeble explanation for the opposition's near-total failure to gain political office, given that many countries demonstrate vigorous electoral competition despite far graver dangers,' Dr Caplan wrote. 'Opposition candidates who avoid personal attacks against PAP politicians can and do freely attack specific policies as ineffective and unfair.' He also noted that international observers 'consistently rated its government as one of the least corrupt in the world, with elections that are free from irregularities and vote rigging'. He observed that voters here, like those elsewhere, wanted lower taxes and more public services. Yet they accepted unpopular policies and continued to vote the PAP into power. 'Singapore is a fascinating challenge to time-tested models of how democracy works,' Dr Caplan wrote. 'But more importantly, the mechanisms underlying Singaporean political economy are probably at work in every democracy. These mechanisms are not unique to Singapore, just uniquely visible.' Mr Shanmugam also addressed the issue of the opposition and defamation suits, which he said was mentioned in 'every single report on Singapore'. He said Singapore valued personal reputation - which the law of defamation here sought to protect. It was a point that he and Chief Justice Chan Sek Keong made to the group in discussions this week. This was because the Government believed that the best people should be brought into public service. But such individuals could be deterred from serving if anyone could say anything about them without having to prove it. 'Some societies, including yours, think that is a mark of character and that is what is needed. We take a different approach,' he said. He said the most successful opposition politician here is Workers' Party chief Low Thia Khiang. He has been in Parliament as Hougang MP since 1991 and has never been sued. The other successful opposition figure is Singapore People's Party chief Chiam See Tong, who 'is known and seen as an honourable man'. Mr Shanmugam recalled that Mr Chiam threatened to sue two PAP ministers who made remarks about his law firm and his abilities when he first stood for election 30 years ago: 'The two ministers took legal advice and paid damages. They did not go to court because that is the way we operate. 'Sensible people take legal advice and if you think you do not have a case, you pay up and they paid up. Mr Chiam sued other people as well, and he has never ever faced a legal suit.' Mr Krishnamani had also read that judges were not independent as they were interchangeable with officers from the Attorney-General's Chambers. He asked if this was correct. Responding, Mr Shanmugam said Subordinate Court judges were part of the broader legal service and could be transferred to other positions there. But High Court judges, once appointed, cannot be removed until they reach the age of 65 and retire. Singapore thought about creating a separate judicial service where judicial officers could have a career track, he revealed. But this was not possible given the small size of the legal service, which had about 300 officers. The bar association's week-long meeting ended yesterday and steering committee member James P. Duffy III told The Straits Times that participants learnt much: 'While not everything we learnt would fit comfortably with some important Western values, we are at the beginning of what we expect will be a long and fruitful dialogue with people whom we respect and want to know and understand better.' zakirh@sph.com.sg Copyright © 2007 Singapore Press Holdings. All rights reserved. Privacy Statement & Condition of Access ---------- Oct 30, 2009 Guilt by media when US TV goes into frenzy WHILE visiting the United States last month, Law Minister K. Shanmugam was shocked at how the murder of a Yale graduate student received 'saturation coverage' in the media. What he found even more surprising was that a major news channel interviewed people who concluded that an individual - identified as a 'person of interest' - was obviously a suspect, and must have done the deed. Mr Shanmugam, a lawyer by training, noted that the 'person of interest' had not been arrested, let alone charged. 'If that programme had been aired in Singapore, the Attorney-General would have started contempt proceedings, against both the media and the person who made those comments,' he said, illustrating the different approaches taken on the media here and in the US. The case he cited was that of Ms Annie Le, 24, who went missing five days before her wedding. Her body was later found in the laboratory where she worked. He was replying to questions on press freedom at a dialogue on Wednesday with 200 lawyers at the New York State Bar Association International Section's meeting here. 'What surprised me as a lawyer was that there was obviously such a competition for news and ratings that it wasn't enough to say the girl had been killed and that a person of interest had been identified,' he recalled of that episode. 'An immediate analysis had to be made of that person.' A major national channel interviewed a psychologist who not only effectively issued a guilty verdict, but also offered reasons why the individual had killed Ms Le. 'I sat there and thought: this is the leader of the free world. This is a major news channel. What about the presumption of innocence? 'What about the fact that the man may have a variety of answers for his conduct? What about the fact that he may not even be guilty?' Mr Shanmugam added: 'That shocked me. That is not to say it is unacceptable. You will decide for yourself what the best media approach to these cases is.' But had that happened in Singapore, the Attorney-General would have stepped in. Earlier, Mr Shanmugam was asked whether, given Singapore's low position in a recent press freedom ranking, it was time to revisit some areas. One that the questioner suggested was the press' ability to comment and argue against policies 'without the need to immediately provide an equal response' from the authorities. Responding, Mr Shanmugam said: 'Judge for yourselves how objective these standards and these rankings are.' He cited two reasons why he did not think it was necessary to re-examine Singapore's policies. One, he did not think the matrix used for these rankings is relevant here. 'What is relevant for us is what works, and what is the role of the press as we see it,' he explained. 'You see it as an effective check on Government. It can have its own existence. The press decides for itself what its role ought to be. It is the final arbiter of what it publishes, its own opinion. 'It checks on itself. As far as I know, the Government cannot check on it. It checks on itself. It is its own authority on what to publish, what opinion to publish.' He then outlined the Government's position: 'We take the view that the press should be a neutral medium for transmission of views on all sides. It can report on the debate whether it is the opposition, or the Government, or public opinion. 'But if the press itself takes on a role and attacks policies for example, day after day, whatever you may say, at the end of the day, positions are hardened. Camps are formed.' And who controls the press? he asked. 'In Third World countries, it is a few media barons. Perhaps you don't have media barons, I won't comment. It is not my position to comment on the US,' he said. 'But perhaps your press is extremely independent and every cable news channel and every journal, including Fox News, transmits all news fairly and equally. Do we consider that necessarily as the best model? I don't think so.' But he assured his audience that the Government did not simply dismiss criticisms: 'If we had done that, we would not be successful.' ZAKIR HUSSAIN Copyright © 2007 Singapore Press Holdings. All rights reserved. Privacy Statement & Condition of Access |