Rule of Law or Rule by Law?

 

I know it’s a little unusual to celebrate my lack of career progression in a month marked by the celebration of labour, but ever since the Attorney General’s Chamber (AGC) decided to double up as the defense counsel for Mr. Karl Liew for lying under oath, I’ve been blessing the twist of fate that helped me escape from being a prisoner of any given profession.

What do I mean by this? The answer is that too many of us tend to see the world through the eyes of our given profession. We forget that our profession exists to serve a wider business and social goal. Sometimes, we get so caught up in being a member of a profession that we forget that the world is greater than our profession.

This is, I believe, the most charitable explanation as to why the AGC made the decision to take on the role as Karl Liew’s defense attorney on the charges of lying in court. This single decision has made every other prospection look ridiculous because whenever the rest of us hear of someone else getting slapped by the authorities, we’re bound to start calculating and asking ourselves “Why are you throwing the house at this guy who did something that didn’t actually harm people but kissing this other guy on the hand when he went out of his way to do something that did actual harm to someone else (I’d say 26 months in jail is a hefty price to pay for a crime one didn’t commit).

The most recent example of this, was the story of how the National Environment Agency (NEA) fined a 62-year-old man was finned S$27,600 for selling food without a license. More on the story can found at:

https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/street-hawker-fined-27600-for-selling-chestnuts-without-a-licence#:~:text=SINGAPORE%20%E2%80%93%20An%20unlicensed%20street%20hawker,in%20a%20statement%20on%20Thursday.

 

 Nobody is disputing that licensing for hawkers is wrong. We accept that there is a need to maintain certain standards of hygiene in the good industry. Nobody wants a scenario where mass breaks of food poisoning take place. The license that hawkers need in order to practice their trade is our way of ensuring that there are some standards.  Nobody is disputing that the NEA had the right to fine the man for not doing this paper work in getting the license.

However, what people have an issue with is with the comparison. The AGC were willing to let Mr. Karl Liew off with a S$5,000 for lying to a public official and in court in order to send his former maid to jail. Even if you take Mr. Liew’s father and family fortune out of the equation, the fine that the AGC wanted to impose of Mr. Karl Liew is not punitive nor would it have endangered Mr. Liew’s ability to make a living. As a well to do Indonesian businessman I had to deal with, once said “It’s a speeding ticket that needs to be paid.”

By comparison the fine of S$27,600 imposed on the hawker is punitive. Think of the number of roasted the chestnuts the man would have had to sell in order to pay the fine in addition to what he’d need to sell in order to pay business cost and to survive.

No matter how you look at it, one cannot help but feel that the government is keen to let the influential off, even when they do things that hurt that hurt innocent people but quite happy to throw the book at ordinary people who overlook the rules that people in offices impose on their ability to make an honest living.  

What can be done? The answer should probably lie in a look at the basic purpose of our system of punishments. Shouldn’t the purpose of legal punishments to ensure that certain things that obviously harm people and by definition the rest of society don’t happen again? Surely the ideal situation is to punish the crime but allow the person to continue being economically productive.

This is particularly important when you are looking at a situation where there is a growing number of old people who are unable to make end meet. Singapore argues that it is a society that does not believe in “welfarism” and making its people “soft.” However, we have to ask if we’re doing something else – making so many rules that it becomes difficult, if not impossible for old people to make a living.

 

 How many tissues does he need to sell to make ends meet?

There is also the need to ensure that the general population understands that the rules apply evenly to everyone, no matter how rich and powerful they are. The Karl Liew’s of this world have shown that they are happy to crush people using the system even if they have to lie and cheat to get their way.

We consistently sell the point that we are a country that has “rule of law.” However, the AGC’s decision to deduct Karl Liew’s pocket money for going out of his way to harm someone, the general public is inevitably going to compare this against the punishment issued to everyone else by any other government agency and question this. They will inevitably ask if we have “rule of law” or “rule by law.”

For example, we talk about the need to execute people for drugs in order to “deter” drug crimes and use. It is argued that we need to “deter” through punishment regardless of the “criminal’s” social status. However, this clearly does not apply to well to do criminals. Case in point – Karl Liew. Every time a “harsh” punishment is issued, we’re going to be led to the fact that the AGC was perfectly willing to let someone who committed the text book definition of perjury in order to send an innocent person to jail by taking away their pocket money. Let’s ask ourselves if this is something that should be asked in a country that prides itself for having “rule of law.”