Whoa, I really went on a blogging hiatus!
Thanks to all who asked how I’ve been doing.
I’ll keep it short — in my early 20’s, I was not exactly very wise or practical with money matters. So I’ve spent the past couple of years reading up on topics like personal finance and sitting down to really think about my career direction.
With that out of the way, I finally got round to reading Legal Consensus.
It is an excellently researched and painstakingly referenced book (the content is in no way “fake news” or figments of an overactive imagination — the footnotes are a very detailed list of the factual events that occurred).
I have collated a few excerpts which capture the essence of the substance of the content.
I have also included a quote by the author, Tey Tsun Hang, and a quote on why the rule of law matters.
You may order a copy of Legal Consensus from Select Books.
TEY TSUN HANG on his academic integrity
“I am no longer willing to self-censor,” Tey wrote to the colleague who had advised him. “I certainly do not want any longer to compromise my intellectual honesty.”
Source: The Monthly
WHY DOES RULE OF LAW MATTER?
It requires that society be ruled by law, and not by the arbitrary (often self-interested) decisions of the small group of men and women who happen to wield public and private power at any given point in time. If the laws are unclear, secret, constantly changing, or retroactive, or if officials and judges do not comply with the law impartially without fear or favour, then it becomes impossible to act within the law.
Source: World Justice Project
QUOTES FROM “LEGAL CONSENSUS”
Pg 3: The imposition of Asian values [served] as a replacement for western liberal ideology, which was deemed by the PAP as threat to its political dominance. . .the importation of Asian values has been seen as artificial and selective; certain Confucianist values like obedience to authority were emphasised, while other values like validity of criticism against evil governments were conveniently neglected.
Pg 76: An accused [would] be found guilty as long as the statements scandalised the judiciary. Therefore, no one can make any adverse comments on the judiciary, regardless of the extent of truth there is in the comments. This is an untenable position [and] may potentially condone judges who do not act in the best interests of justice.
Pg 121: Such clinical and carefree approach in this area of jurisprudence, where execution of the condemned prisoner is the end product, leaves a lot to be desired.
Pg 127: …the perceived need for out-of-bound markers (OB markers) to set the limits of political participation even with an open and consultative government.
The basis for the existence of OB markers lies in a patronising view of society: citizens have to be protected from their own irrationality by a father-figure in the form of the state.
Pg 128: The ideology of pragmatism, together with a paternalistic and elitist mindset, has enabled the PAP to carry through unpopular policies, in the name of national interest.
[The political model] reflects a doubtful trust in society’s judgment…this conception of politics provides the rationale for the PAP’s “monopoly of power,” because it is able to denounce any political interference that does not follow the official rules.
Pg 131: Civil society [in Singapore] was not left to develop independently, but had to develop according to PAP guidelines.
The idea of a “civic society,” as opposed to civil society, was first mentioned by George Yeo. The notion of civic society highlights the civic responsibilities of citizens, instead of their rights, as in the conventional understanding of civil society. The key difference between civil and civic society is that civil society engages the state in political matters, while civic society does not. The emphasis on civic society reveals the Executive’s preference for a state-endorsed civic society rather than a liberal civil society.
The Executive was able to maintain control and consensus through a strategy [that included] circumscribing the limits of the Law Society’s statutory powers, reducing the legal profession’s independence in self-regulation, and creating a climate of fear which keep members of the legal profession safely within prescribed limits.
Pg 161: Civil society in Singapore, therefore, is not being genuinely liberated, but is being “steered in a fixed and institutionalised framework,” [and] should not be confused with a fully fledged civil society endowed with autonomous associations organised independently from the state.
Source: Legal Consensus, by Tsun Hang Tey (2011)
Get a Copy @ Select Books