SINGAPORE'S LAW

24 Mar 1996

        I thank Mr Leslie Fong for his two columns 
on the latitude of some Singapore laws ('Should 
laws be less catch-all in nature', STWE, 16/3/96 
and 'Safeguards for individuals but not at 
society's expense', ST Internet Edition, 
23/3/96). His call to citizens to perform their 
civic duty of providing feedback on the issue is 
timely.

        Senior Parliamentary Secretary for Home 
Affairs Associate Professor Ho Peng Kee should 
explain why hundreds of first-time litterers 
have been served with community work orders 
(CWOs) when assurances had been given in 
Parliament that CWOs would be reserved for 
recalcitrants only. His silence casts doubt on 
the longevity of his present assurances 
regarding the laws on abusing emergency 
telephone lines and nudity in public. Will his 
legally non-binding promises also quietly expire 
in future if they impose 'unrealistic 
preconditions and standards of proof' that 
impede his vaunted 'robust practical approach' 
to law and order in Singapore?

        On the same issue, Member of Parliament 
Choo Wee Khiang advocates a 'commonsense 
attitude' as superior to a 'legalistic 
insistence on individual rights at the expense 
of society's larger interest'. It is common 
sense, apparently, to be unconcerned about the 
'fine print' of the law. I fervently hope that 
this sense is uncommon to MP Choo only. 
Ironically, in deriding the fine print, MP Choo 
has missed the forest for the trees. He wrongly 
equates a lack of concern with the fine print 
with a lack of concern for limiting governmental 
powers. Ordinary people everywhere are well 
aware of the danger of unfettered official 
power. MP Choo further compounds his mistake by 
barking up the tree of individual rights when 
the issue is about the latitude of laws.

        Like Mr Fong, I am perturbed that 
Associate Professor Ho chose to finesse 
legitimate concern over the wide latitude of 
some laws by insisting that the integrity of the 
police, prosecutorial and judicial agencies is a 
better safeguard than including checks into 
criminal laws. Checks and integrity are not 
opposed, for checks do not necessarily hamper 
law enforcement. It is arguable that law 
enforcement officers with clearly defined powers 
work more effectively and decisively than those 
unclear about their powers. When the United 
States Supreme Court created strict rules for 
police arrest (the so-called Miranda rights), it 
said that observing those rules did not prevent 
the Federal Bureau of Investigation from out-
performing other American law enforcement 
agencies.

        If the Government wishes to retain maximum 
discretion in bringing prosecutions, it cannot 
duck the responsibility for compensating those 
acquitted. At the very least, discretion in 
compensation should reside with the judges. Yet, 
the latter is a idea that the Government has 
steadfastly rejected. Associate Professor Ho 
cannot have his cake and eat it, too.

        Finally, when the Government amended the 
Constitution to provide for an elected President 
with veto powers over the use of the reserves, 
it argued that the amendment was necessary to 
provide a vital, legislative check against some 
future, possibly corrupt Government. Do not our 
civil rights deserve similar protection from 
future, possibly corrupt officers?