|
 TO UNDERSTAND Singapore, you have to know how we were
suddenly thrown out of the Federation of Malaysia in 1965 and became an
independent state. Peninsular Malaya had been Singapore's hinterland ever since
the British founded Singapore in 1819.
We faced a bleak future. We had no natural resources. A small island-nation in
the middle of newly independent and nationalistic countries of Indonesia and
Malaysia, each determined to cut Singapore off as the middleman. To survive, we
had to create a Singapore different from our neighbours - clean, more efficient,
more secure, with quality infrastructure and good living conditions.
We sought to provide an environment that our neighbours did not provide - First
World standards of reliability and predictability. Important for investors and
economic growth is the rule of law, implemented through an independent
judiciary, an honest and efficient police force and effective law enforcement
agencies. Had we not differentiated Singapore in this way, it would have
languished and perished as a shrinking trading centre instead of becoming the
thriving business hub it is today.
I studied law in the Cambridge Law School and am a barrister of Middle Temple,
an English Inn of Court. I practised law for a decade before I first took office
in 1959 as prime minister of self-governing Singapore. Therefore I knew the rule
of law would give Singapore an advantage in the centre of South-east Asia where
the law was often what was decided by the leader, whether a president or prime
minister, often an ex-military man.
Singapore inherited a sound legal system from the British. Clear laws, easy
access to justice and an efficient legal system provide the basis for citizens
to compete equally in the market and to grow the economy.
A stable and predictable legal environment facilitates the enforcement of
contractual rights and protection of property rights. The common law heritage
and its developed contract law are known to and have helped attract investors.
Our laws relating to financial services are similar to those of leading
financial centres in other common law jurisdictions such as London and New York.
As these are the two leading financial centres in the world, their laws govern
most financial transactions worldwide. They are used freely in Singapore.
Since 1959 we have adopted English as our working language.
While we have kept key English legal principles; after the United Kingdom joined
the European Union, it adopted EU laws and doctrines. We have not followed them.
Instead we have amended our laws to fit our needs and circumstances.
The independence of our courts is protected by the Constitution that prevents
removal of judges from office by the executive. We established our final Court
of Appeal in place of the Privy Council as our courts would be more familiar
with our own legislation and local conditions and culture.
We still look to English precedents and examples, but increasingly we look also
to those of United States, Australia, New Zealand and other Commonwealth
countries. Even civil law countries have given us useful concepts and ideas,
especially those adopted and incorporated as part of UNCITRAL trade laws.
Needs-based legislation
WE have special legislation to meet our needs: A multi-racial and
multi-religious society is prone to conflicts. Race, language and religion in
Singapore have to be handled sensitively, especially during elections. We have
enacted the Religious Harmony Act and set up the Presidential Council for
Minority Rights. We created Group Representation Constituencies to ensure
minority representation in Parliament.
For good industrial relations, we enacted the Employment Act and Industrial
Relations Act to provide the framework for our tripartite system of industrial
ties, a system for collective bargaining, and an Industrial Arbitration Court to
resolve industrial disputes.
For law and order, we have strong deterrent sentences for offences such as drug
trafficking, kidnapping, unlawful possession of firearms.
The Immigration Act provides for caning sentences to deter illegal immigrants
and overstayers.
For national security, the Internal Security Act allows for preventive
detention, an effective response to terrorists.
By the 1980s, the system of courts we inherited from the British could not cope
with the increasing volume of work. It needed to be modernised and to make use
of IT. This also needed a chief justice who is not only legally qualified, but
also has managerial and administrative experience to reform the system.
It was Chief Justice Yong Pung How (1990-2006) who had practised law for over
two decades before he became a merchant banker and finally chairman of
Singapore's largest bank. He restructured the system, instituted new procedures,
used IT in the courts, increased the number of judges and courts and selected
the most able and balanced of those at the Bar to become judges.
The World Bank, in a report this year entitled Judiciary-led Reforms In
Singapore - Framework Strategies And Lessons, stated: 'Over the past 15 years,
Singapore's judicial system has been transformed from one that many viewed as
characterised by inefficiencies, delays, and inadequate administrative capacity
to one widely seen as among the most efficient and effective in the world.'
Attorney-General Chan Sek Keong, who has since become Chief Justice, will
maintain these standards.
Good governance, a sound legal framework and judiciary have resulted in
stability and economic growth.
Transparency and integrity
OUR emphasis is on meritocracy, the building blocks of sound governance and
integrity in our judiciary and legal system. The integrity of our financial
systems withstood the turbulence of the 1997 Asian financial crisis that caused
several of our neighbours' banking systems to collapse. Singapore's firm
regulatory framework has facilitated economic progress.
Corruption, endemic in parts of the world, was seeping into Singapore in the
1950s when elections had introduced elected ministers in the transition to
internal self- government. In 1959 when we took office in the first fully
elected government, we moved swiftly to rid ourselves of corruption before it
could become endemic.
Transparency International, a civil society organisation against corruption
based in Berlin, has repeatedly listed Singapore among the top five of 163
countries. And the only one from Asia in the first five.
Our system does not tolerate corruption and we have avoided the problems of
widespread corruption that have plagued Asia. Our Corrupt Practices
Investigation Bureau (CPIB) annually tabulates the cases brought against
officers and executives from the public and private sectors. In two cases, it
led to the conviction and prison sentence of a junior minister. Another, a
Cabinet minister, committed suicide after being investigated for corruption.
Three factors enabled Singapore to escape the poverty that plagued the region:
First, clean and efficient government; second, the character and capabilities of
the leadership in charge; third, an industrious people, eager and quick to learn
to be productive and gainfully employed.
Defamation
POLITICAL leaders in Singapore take action against opponents who make statements
against them that impute dishonesty and lack of integrity. Situated in a region
where 'money politics' is part of the political culture and an accepted way of
life, any allegation of corruption in Singapore must be taken seriously.
It leads to an investigation by the CPIB, and/or an action for defamation
against the person making the allegation to clear any doubts on the integrity of
the government.
As a result, people in Singapore do not equate their political leaders with
second-hand car salesmen.
Economic competitiveness
INTERNATIONAL surveys of economic competitiveness of countries always include
the legal framework and the administration of justice as key criteria in ranking
such countries.
The Political and Risk Consultancy, World Economic Forum and other polls show
that both foreigners and Singaporeans believe we have good judicial and legal
systems, and fair administration of justice.
The Institute For Management Development World Competitiveness Yearbook has
consistently ranked Singapore in the top two positions since 1997 under the
Legal Framework component. (This category examines if the legal and regulatory
framework encourages the competitiveness of enterprises.)
The World Bank released its study Doing Business Report 2007 in September last
year. Singapore fared better in 2006, compared to the previous year, and has
replaced New Zealand at the top spot.
Despite these endorsements, we cannot be complacent. We have to respond to new
challenges that technology and globalisation have brought upon us.
With technology increasingly sophisticated in a world that is increasingly
borderless, crime has become multi-faceted, and multi-jurisdictional. Our
legislative mechanisms have responded to meet these challenges. Many legal
issues today require an international cooperation for solutions.
Law firms are also taking advantage of new global business opportunities and
technologies. US and British law firms are able to venture aggressively into new
markets, following their clients' multi-jurisdictional businesses. Businesses
span many countries and lawyers must meet the needs of their multinational
clientele.
We need to maintain Singapore's position as a city par excellence, with an
environment that is clean, safe and vibrant to work in and live in. We try to
retain our best, and we attract the best to come, settle and raise their
families here.
Trackback(0)
 |
Articles & Judgments 
TrackBack URI for this entry
Subscribe to this comment's feed
Report of the Panel of Eminent Persons to Review of 1988 Judicial Crisis
Malacca Bar: Conference on the Roadmap to Local Government Elections 
