Why is Singapore such a focal point of interest when it comes to issues of democracy, human rights and rule of law?

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.

Indeed, Singapore's development experience suggests that strong paternalistic rule can co-exist with economic prosperity which, in turn, need not necessarily result in democratic transition.

With our global city aspirations, the Government is more conscious of international perceptions of Singapore, and seeks to tackle preconceived beliefs and hardened stereotypes head-on.

The recent Singapore meeting of the international section of the New York State Bar Association (NYSBA) provided a platform for the Government to engage its members, whose worldwide membership stands at 80,000.

The Chief Justice, the Attorney-General, and the Law Minister spent a considerable amount of time over several days dialoguing with about 200-odd lawyers from various countries including Singapore.

It was only in 2007 during the International Bar Association annual conference in Singapore that the Government last made a similarly concerted effort to engage foreign lawyers.

The concerns of foreign lawyers (and non-governmental organisations) reside with their view that political debate and freedom of expression are extremely restricted in Singapore, chilled further by defamation laws that favour the political elite. The judiciary is also criticised, if not caricaturised, for lacking independence. The local media is pilloried as a lapdog when it should be a watchdog.

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 points out that critics fail to acknowledge that the rule of law has been fundamental in Singapore's transformation.

In 1990, before "Asian Values" became the vogue, then Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew described the distinguishing feature of Singapore communitarian model as such: "The basic difference in our approach springs from our traditional Asian value system which places the interests of the community over and above that of the individual. In English doctrine, the rights of the individual must be the paramount consideration. We shook ourselves free from the confines of English norms which did not accord with customs and values of Singapore society".

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.

Good governance requires a delicate "3R" balance of rights, responsibilities, and regulations. Where the discourse diverges and generates more heat and raw emotions is over the right balance needed vis-a-vis the 3Rs.

Singapore places a premium on individual responsibility and communitarian interests; the over-exuberant assertion of individual rights and individualism secures no traction in the "Singapore Way".

It is fatal conceit to believe that there can be a resolution to this tired debate, which in essence is a clash of world-views and entrenched belief systems. The bigger challenge is to engender affective and cognitive acceptance of our evolving rule of law paradigm among Singaporeans.

As our society evolves and matures, the substantive content of rule of law here has to adjust to the societal changes. Increasingly, prosperity will be determined not only by pragmatic wealth indicators (like Gross Domestic Product) but also by post-material considerations of the "wellbeing" of an individual vis-a-vis society.

Wellbeing is determined by both tangible (such as health and security) and abstract factors such as happiness and the substantive content and quality of fundamental freedoms that we enjoy.

Going forward, Singaporeans should engage the Government on growing the substantive content of the rule of law necessary to lead full and meaningful lives. A sustained and meaningful engagement has to go beyond the self-limiting discourse revolving around elite concerns of paranoia, and socio-cultural and political impossibilities that, all too often, puts Singapore on the defensive. ¢



The writer is assistant professor of law at the School of Law, Singapore Management University. He participated in the NYSBA meeting in Singapore last month.