Freedom of Movement under the Singapore Constitution

Been pondering a little about the right to freedom of movement enshrined in Article 13(2) of the Singapore Constitution – especially in light of the passage in 2009 of the Public Order Act, and more recently, the Casino Control (Amendment) Act. Both these laws hamper, to varying degrees, the spatial mobility of Singaporeans within Singapore’s territory.

Thinking Aloud: The Rule of Law in Singapore

Asst. Prof. Eugene Tan of the School of Law at SMU writes the occasional, insightful piece in the local newspapers. Last Saturday, his TODAY article entitled “Debating rule of law in Singapore” (14 Nov) reflected on last month’s New York State Bar Association meeting in Singapore. Here are some extracts:

… … …

Is Singapore an ersatz democracy which patently lacks human rights, and the rule of law an elaborate fiction?

Singapore is a glaring exception to established understanding in the liberal theory of democracy and empiricism of how democracies evolve. Singapore has remained stable, peaceful and prosperous without the full suite of democratic norms taken for granted in liberal democracies

… … …

In its own particularistic conception, Singapore accords importance to the rule of law, especially in the economic realm, but argues for a relativistic understanding and application of the venerable concept.

… … …

The Government has steadfastly maintained that there is no universal understanding and prescription of what the rule of law constitutes. It has abidingly insisted that the rule of law is subject to the social, economic and security imperatives facing Singapore.

Thus, rule of law here is not an end in itself but a process, a means to the end of good governance denominated by a stable political order grounded in social consensus on the common good.

Prof. Tan runs together the 3 concepts, “democracy”, “human rights” and “rule of law”. Some may protest that they come as a package-deal, but I think each has a distinct meaning we must unravel.

Response to ST Forum Letter, “Decriminalise consensual underage sex”.

This is a slightly revised and footnoted version of a letter I sent to the Straits Times Forum last Saturday. It’s a reply to this letter, published last Friday.

(Incidentally, a letter today by Mr. Alvin Chen, which was selected for publication over mine, mirrors several points I made.)

I refer to the letter, “Decriminalise consensual underage sex” (13 Nov) by Mr. Vikram Ranjan Ramasamy. Mr. Ramasamy mistakenly asserts that “consensual” underage sex does not cause harm to others. Teenage pregnancies and sexually transmitted infections (STIs) impose costs (including healthcare and social support) which are collectively borne by society. For example, STIs among youths more than doubled from 238 cases in 2002 to 787 last year.[1]

These societal costs are magnified because youths who do have sex are unlikely to take adequate precautions. A 2006 survey indicated that less than a quarter of sexually-active Singaporean youths use contraceptives.[2] While sex education is the best antidote, the continued criminalisation of underage sex may deter youths who otherwise would engage in unprotected sex from putting themselves in a position to take those risks to begin with.

Hate Speech in Singapore

“Racial and Religious Hate Speech in Singapore: Reclaiming the Victim’s Perspective”
(draft of forthcoming article in the Singapore Law Review, 2009)

Racist Speech — Whose Fault is It, Anyway?

A dude going by the rather charming moniker, Sexy Fragrance Prince, has been charged under s. 298 of the Penal Code. Since I’m presently researching on the topic of hate speech legislation, I thought I should weigh in a little on this debate.

A few good blog posts on this issue:

• Ian on the Red Dot, “Bloggers Should be Allowed to be as Racist as Possible”
• Simply Jean, “Local Blogger Arrested”
• Simply Inconceivable, “Jail the racist blogger. Legal?”

Before commenting on the free speech issues, I would note that the relevant provision used here is s. 298 of the Penal Code (for wounding another person’s racial or religious feelings with deliberate intention), and not the Sedition Act (as in 2005, with Benjamin Koh and his ilk).

The Pedra Branca Denouement: Between a Rock and a Hard Place?

To make up for a long absence, I will post in quick succession on a number of issues: Pedra Branca, racist bloggers, the Yaw Shin Leong mini-scandal, and (just in) the disciplinary fallout from Mas Selamat’s escape. Let me start with a short comment on Pedra Branca.

The Straits Times

May 26, 2008

SM: Accepting outcome shows maturing of ties

By Zakir Hussain

THE world court’s decision on Pedra Branca has untied a ‘tricky knot’ in bilateral ties between Singapore and Malaysia, Senior Minister Goh Chok Tong said yesterday.

Both sides can now ‘look forward instead of being bogged down by this issue’, he told reporters ahead of a charity golf tournament to raise funds for the needy in Yuhua constituency.

… … …

‘Personally, I’m disappointed that we did not get the award for Middle Rocks,’ he added.

‘I thought it would either be all or nothing, a binary solution, because the three rocky outcrops were quite close to one another.’

‘But nevertheless, there is a hint of Solomon in the decision,’ he said, referring to the Biblical king known for his wisdom.

‘And I think perhaps it’s the fair and best outcome for both sides.’

Full Story

Perhaps the most famed example of King Solomon’s wisdom is chronicled in 1 Kings 3:16-28 of the Bible. Two female prostitutes come before Solomon with an infant boy, each claiming that the child is hers. Aside from the rather unflattering comparison which SM Goh draws between Singapore and Malaysia, and prostitutes, there is yet another difference between the story of Solomon and the Pedra Branca dispute.

In the former, Solomon merely threatened to cut up the child with a sword as a means of determining its true mother. With its ruling on Friday, however, the International Court of Justice (“ICJ”) actually severs in two the group of islands comprising Pedra Branca, Middle Rocks and South Ledge. (The judgment is available here.)

JI Detainee’s Escape: Another Argument Against the ISA?

So the controversy surrounding the Budget 2008 Debate (which I haven’t the time to follow) has been drowned out by this news of the Manhunt. A rifle-totting, able-bodied, combat-trained CPL Dave Teo is apparently small-fry in comparison with the unarmed, partly-crippled former chief of the Jemaah Islamiah.

The Straits Times was notably quick to publish a report assuring readers that security at the Whitley Road detention centre (“WRDC”) is “very tight”. Conveniently, the report cites anonymous “people who have visited detainees there”. Surely the level of security should be gauged (on a technical basis) against those of regular prisons like Changi and Queenstown Remand, rather than on the basis of the opinions of ‘visitors’ to the WRDC.

Already, two differences of the WRDC from regular prisons may be noted from the Straits Times report. The WRDC has no watchtowers, and it is housed within a complex which rather bizarrely includes a “heritage centre” (not exactly what you would expect in a highly-secured facility).