RULE OF LAW

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

Mr Speaker: This motion is subject to signification of support by at least one Member. Does the motion have the support of any other hon. Member?

Mr Low Thia Khiang (Hougang): I support.

Mr Jeyaretnam: Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move,

That this House recognises the importance of the Rule of Law and urges the government to ensure the complete and full compliance of the Rule of Law by all Ministers, officials and public servants.

Mr Speaker, Sir, may I assure those Members of the House who perhaps are asking why is the Member always raising issues that are ---

Assoc. Prof. Toh See Kiat (Aljunied): Point of order, Sir.

Mr Speaker: Yes. What is your point of order?

Assoc. Prof. Toh See Kiat: I believe the NCMP has changed the words of the motion and has not given notice of it.

Mr Speaker: Mr Jeyaretnam, in the motion that you have submitted, I think the Member is referring to the word "observance". You have used the word "compliance".

Mr Jeyaretnam: I see. I am sorry.

Mr Speaker: Can I ask you to stick to the original words?

Mr Jeyaretnam: Thank you, I will. Thank you for pointing that out.

Mr Speaker: Please proceed.

Mr Jeyaretnam: Sir, I beg to move,

That this House recognises the importance of the Rule of Law and urges the government to ensure the complete and full observance of the Rule of Law by all Ministers, officials and public servants.

I was saying, Sir, that I assure those Members of the House who perhaps are asking themselves why is the Member introducing the subject on which we have heard enough, and do we have to listen again to the same thing. May I remind the Members that the subject is not about any abstract value. It may be intangible, but is more valuable than any tangibles.

The rule of law is what sets a civilised society apart from other societies that do not observe the rule of law. So it is not an abstract airy-fairy rule that is propounded or shouted out by left wing liberals, but it is something that is so fundamental in any society that believes itself to be a civilised society.

I do not think I have to make a strong case on the first statement that the House recognises the importance of the rule of law, because we have had, many a time, Ministers declaring how Singapore scrupulously obeys the rule of law. So there is an admission that Singapore scrupulously recognises the rule of law.

The Government often talks about having the fundamentals correct, and they pride themselves that in Singapore the fundamentals are correct and laid down. May I say that the rule of law is the first basic fundamental for any society. It is the only guarantee of the subject's freedom. Without the rule of law, the subject lives in a state of uncertainty and in a state of bewilderment and consequently of fear. But where the rule of law obtains in all its fullest extent, the citizen can live happily, breathe freely, knowing that he is ruled only by the law and not by anything else.

Under this rule, citizens are ruled by the law and the law alone. We have had, only this afternoon, the Minister of State saying that it was important to send a strong message to those who blatantly and flagrantly disregard the law. My party says amen to that. The question is: is the Government exempt from this scrupulous observance of the Rule of Law? And that is what the House has to decide this afternoon. I have no doubt what the outcome of this motion will be. But what this House has to ponder is whether the Government in Singapore disregards the law, or is it only its citizens who refuse to attend and answer court summonses? We have to ask the question whether in Singapore it is a society that lives under the rule of law or whether it is a society that lives under a government that acts by decree rather than under law. It is a question that we have got to face and answer. Is the society in Singapore a civilised society living under the rule of law? Or is it a society more akin to a society ruled by a Mafia?

I know these are strong words but the question has to be asked and answered. If the rule of law does not obtain and citizens cannot live in the certainty that all their actions will be judged only by the law and by nothing else, and they will only be punished by the law and not by any arbitrary power on the part of the Minister, it is no better than a dictatorship, where a dictator rules by decree. May I quote to this House what one of the finest writers from Africa and a Nobel Laureate, Mr Wole Soyinka, from Nigeria, wrote in his book The Open Sore of a Continent. And these are his words, "Under a dictatorship, a nation ceases to exist. All that remains is a fiefdom, a planet of slaves." How true those words are. If it is a dictatorship, ruled by decree, then it is no longer a nation but a fiefdom.

May I also inform the Members that the proposition of the rule of law that it is an absolute fundamental and necessary before citizens can live in peace and freedom is not something new. It is not a novel concept. Its origins can perhaps be traced back to the 13th century when the English Barons met at Runnymede to curtail and to restrict the powers of the Monarch. Before that, the Monarch was ruling at will, doing what he wished and restricting the liberties of his subjects. And so the Barons gathered to put an end to this rule by the Monarch without any law and they passed a number of declarations. These declarations were later accepted by the Monarch, Henry III, I think, and came to be known as the Magna Carta, the great Charter. And clause 39 is revealing. One can see the origins of all our recent declarations in this clause, and if I may read clause 39:

"No free man shall be taken or imprisoned or disused or outlawed or exiled or in any way destroyed nor will we send upon him except by the lawful judgment of his peers or by the law of the land." They are laying down, telling the Monarch that no free man shall be taken, exiled, his liberty destroyed in any way except by the lawful judgment of his peers or by the law of the land.

Clause 40 says, "To no one will we sell, deny or delay right or justice." As I have said, they were embodied in the Great Charter issued back in the time of Henry III at the request of the Barons and became a foundation for the society in England. One of the reasons why despite the Government's assertion, often repeated, that in Singapore the Government observes the rule of law scrupulously and it is seen in its fullest extent, and the critics saying something quite the opposite, that there is no rule of law in Singapore today, may be due to a misconception as to what is meant and understood by the Rule of Law. Therefore, it is important that we try and understand what we mean when we say of the Rule of Law.

I see the mentor of the leaders of this Government, Confucius himself, recognised the importance of giving things their correct names. He was asked by a disciple, "What will be your first task if you are given the charge of a country?" His answer was, "Rectify the names." When he was asked to explain, he was reported to have said, "If the names are not correct, if they do not match realities, language has no object. If language is without an object, action becomes impossible. Therefore, all human affairs disintegrate, and their management becomes impossible. Hence, the very first task of a true statesman is to rectify the names."

So the need to try and name things properly is recognised by Confucius himself. Perhaps I should try and say something about what is understood by the Rule of Law. This term, the Rule of Law, came into prominence when Prof. A. V. Dicey, a Vinerian Professor of English law, propounded it. He saw the Rule of Law to consist of two main parts. "One, the absolute supremacy or predominance of regular law as opposed to the influence of arbitrary power and excludes the existence of arbitrariness, of prerogative or even of wide discretionary authority on the part of the Government. Subjects are ruled by the law and by the law alone. A subject can be punished for a breach of law but they can be punished for nothing else." He continues: "In this sense, rule of law contrasts with every system of Government based on the exercise by persons in authority of wide arbitrary or discretionary powers of constraint." That is the first meaning of the Rule of Law.

Mr Speaker: Order. Mr Jeyaretnam, would you return to your seat?

Mr Jeyaretnam resumed his seat.

Mr Wong Kan Seng: Mr Speaker, Sir, before Mr Jeyaretnam continues with his lecture, may I just move the exemption motion to give more time.

Mr Speaker: All right.