What You See is What You Get.

 

The great aftermath of the debate on the Foreign Interference (Countermeasures) Act (“FICA”) cane in the form of a letter from the Ministry of Home Affairs (“MHA”) to nine individuals who had the misfortune of reprinting a quote from Mothership, which turned out to be a misquote.” The full story can be found at:

https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/politics/mha-asks-nine-to-correct-false-statements-apologise-for-misrepresenting-ministers

The quote from Mothership gave the impression that our writer and enforcer of laws didn’t believe in the concept of “Rule of Law,” when in fact the Minister had argued that the concept of the “Rule of Law” had been fundamental to Singapore and countries that did not have rule of law often found the experience to be miserable.

 "The posts in question had completely misstated what Mr Shanmugam had said at the debate on the Foreign Interference (Countermeasures) Act, or Fica, MHA said.

"The minister had said in Parliament that rule of law is fundamental and basic for Singapore and its success, and the Government has always been committed to the rule of law and continues to be committed to it," MHA's statement said.

"He also said that there are countries around the world where the rule of law is a concept for lawyers, but does not operate in the real world, and their societies live in utter misery."

Singapore has always taken pride in the fact that we are a society “ruled by laws.” In layman terms, this means that we’re ruled by a set of laws and you get punished if you break the laws, regardless of who you are.

This is what you’d call our trump card when dealing with foreign investors. I remember IMMPAct 2013, when then Deputy Prime Minister Teo Chee Hean was asked about Singapore’s rising cost for foreign investors. His remark was that while costs were going up, in Singapore it was a case of “What you see is what you get.” We tell foreign investors that even if costs in Singapore are high compared to other places, the laws will protect them.

This has been a fairly successful line. I remember Polaris (now hived off into Virtusa and Intellect Design Arena) stating that Singapore was their Asia-Pacific Headquarters and all contracts in the region were signed under Singapore Law. Our legal infrastructure is a selling point.

As with international measures of corruption, we ranking exceedingly well in terms of rule of law. According to the World Justice Project (WJP), we are the 12^th best when it comes to rule of law – the ranking ahead of the United Kingdom (Home of the Common Law) and the United States (World Champion of Rule of Law). Details of how we rank can be seen at:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Justice_Project

 

https://worldjusticeproject.org/rule-of-law-index/country/2020/Singapore/

 

Our ranking in terms of rule of law is very respectable. In terms of rule of law, we rank with the best of the developed world. However, there are some questions that need to be raised.

The key question to our global standing might sound mean spirited. A ranking of 12^th best place for rule of law is exceedingly respectable and it’s clear that we rank with the best of the developed world rather than as an “s**hole” country in one of the most fundamental aspects of what constitutes a “civilized” nation. However, Singapore’s ministers are paid more than their global counterparts on the premise that they are the least corrupt and the most competent that money can buy. Given that our writer and enforcer of laws is paid more than his global counterparts, the very least we should expect to rank is in the top 10. Furthermore, one should note that although our 2020 ranking is highly respectable, our score has dropped.

The answer to why we’re not in the top 10, where we should be, probably lies in the factors eight factors that the WJP took into consideration. If you look at how we compared, we were in the top five in the global rankings (out of 128 nations) for things like absence of corruption, order and security and regulatory enforcement. Our regional comparison (out of 15 was even better). We were number one in absence of corruption, order and security, regulatory enforcement, civil justice and criminal justice.

Where we fall down were in things like constraint of government power (29/128 on the global scale and 6/15 on the regional scale), open government (26/128 on the global scale and 6/15 on the regional scale) and fundamental rights (32/128 on the global scale and 5/15 on the regional scale). A fuller analysis of our ranking can be seen at:

https://worldjusticeproject.org/rule-of-law-index/country/2020/Singapore/  

 

What accounts for this disparity in the factors? One could argue that the concept of “rule of law” fails to talk about what laws we’re talking about. If you look at the factors where Singapore is in the top five, you’ll notice that they cover areas that foreign investors look at – i.e. if one puts money into a country, one needs assurance that one won’t be shaken down by the government or that one will be able to get a fair hearing in the local system if one needs to take enforcement action.

Where Singapore is clearly less good at, is in constraints on government power and fundamental rights of the everyday man. The rankings are high enough not to scare people away. This is not some s***hole country where people can be made to disappear at the whim of someone with money or power or both. However, it indicates that certain basic things are not a priority for the people designing the system. If you can rank highly in the top five for five out of a possible eight, why can’t you do the same in the remaining three factors.

Constraints on government power is clearly a weakness in our system of rule of law and yet, this doesn’t seem to bother the man in charge of law writing and enforcement. Just as he was quick to send a nasty letter out to the nine individuals to clarify what he said, he was rather dismissive of the concept of restraining the executive. As was reported in the Straits Times (not a bastion of anti-establishment propaganda) “he agreed that while executive powers must be subject to checks and balances, the questions are in what form and what are the appropriate and best solutions for Singapore's context.” This is executive speak for “not a priority,” (if it was, he would have seen that solution was written into the act).

As per my previous posting on “God-Kings,” Singapore is lucky that the current crop of people in power are relatively benign and not inclined to abuse things. However, there is no guarantee that this will always be the case and both Singaporeans and the foreign investor community will need assurance that all future governments will value “rule of law.” Improving things like constraints on government power and open government are the very things that will ensure we have rule of law and disregarding them will be the very actions that send our WJP rankings down the tube.