Shanmugam raps critics of remarks on penalties: Read and understand them first

SINGAPORE — Reiterating that the Government has to take into account the weight of public opinion when it decides on legislation, Law and Home Affairs Minister K Shanmugam yesterday took some commentators to task — singling out an academic from the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy (LKYSPP) — for misconstruing his remarks made during a recent interview with this newspaper.

In a TODAY article published on Monday, Mr Shanmugam said that the Government must pay heed to public sentiments on how the law should punish certain crimes, but this does not equate to bowing to public pressure.

He had added that this is because, if penalties do not reflect the weight of public opinion and people do not find them fair, the law would lose its credibility and would not be enforceable.

Yesterday, he reiterated: “Public opinion alone cannot be the deciding factor — Government has to do what it considers to be right and fair, in the public interest. Public opinion can sometimes be inaccurate, because of a lack of understanding of the facts — and it would be wrong for the Government to simply follow public opinion in all situations.”

But if a law lacked public support, and the Government failed to persuade the public about it, then the legislation could become difficult to enforce over time, he pointed out.

“These are commonsensical propositions, and have long been the basis on which laws are passed in many countries, including Singapore. What I said reflects established principles of law making ... They are not some new-fangled theory,” said Mr Shanmugam, who is currently in the United States on a work trip.

He noted that based on the TODAY article, some have assumed that he suggested that sentences in individual cases should be dictated by public opinion. Referring to LKYSPP Associate Dean Donald Low, Mr Shanmugam said: “Others, such as Donald Low, claim that ‘making laws on the basis of public opinion is populism by another name’, and that ‘if criminal punishments are to reflect only public opinion’, one may as well ‘just run an opinion poll each time someone has been convicted’.”

Commenting on the article, Assoc Prof Low had posted on Facebook on Monday, and his post was shared by some users. Among other things, he also wrote that “for the same reasons that public policy cannot be a popularity contest, neither should the penalties for crimes simply take reference from what the public thinks is correct at any point in time”.

He had added that if criminal punishments reflected only public opinion, there was no need for judges to give out sentences.

Yesterday, Mr Shanmugam pointed out that his remarks had nothing to do with how individual cases should be decided and what sentences should be meted out by judges. These fell within the jurisdiction of the courts and the judges, he stressed. He added that what he said in the interview touched on a different issue: The factors that the Government should take into account when it decides on what conduct should be criminalised, and the range of penalties that Singapore’s legislation should prescribe for different categories of offences.

The TODAY article had “clearly set out” the considerations for the Government in deciding on legislation to be passed in Parliament, he said. Beyond mulling over what is right and fair, the authorities should also consider the weight of public opinion.

“For example, if an overwhelming majority of the public will not consider some conduct to be criminal, or will consider some conduct to be acceptable, then that is relevant, when deciding whether to put forward a law which criminalises such conduct,” said Mr Shanmugam.

He added: “Academics, like Donald, have every right to criticise statements made by others, in particular on issues of public importance. But to be meaningful, and sensible, it will be first useful to read and understand what has been said, before jumping in to criticise. Otherwise the commentator does no credit to himself or his institution. Particularly an institution which carries Mr Lee Kuan Yew’s name.”