The codified constitution of nations is vital in defining and enshrining the value systems of societies all over the world. It sets in stone the extent of a government's powers over its people.  It creates rules we are all bound to, codifies standards we are held accountable to - but most importantly, perhaps, it is a mirror of the nation; by examining a constitution, one is often able to discern the country's beliefs, traditions and culture of governance.  The constitution of the United States is the oldest of all modern nations' constitutions, and a classic example of this.  The 1st Amendment, for instance, is taught to children early into their elementary school education (their equivalent of our primary school).  It is a simple and powerful declaration of what Americans will fight to the death to fiercely defend:

In Singapore, the prominence of our constitution and the extent of our awareness of it is severely diminished in contrast.  This is due partly to the fact that a constitution is never an all-powerful affair.  Here in Singapore, it can be amended with the support of two-thirds of an obviously one party dominated Parliament.  The PAP has had no qualms in exercising this capacity.  But perhaps it is the very fact that they have this power and have used it so many times that allows our constitution to be such a telltale mirror of our culture of governance.  It reflects the power of the government over the people, and reveals the Singaporean tradition.  I have found it deserving of a closer look.

To begin with, I quote Sylvia Lim:


Lim is likely referring to incidents such as the one in 1991 when the constitution was amended for the creation of Group Representation Constituencies (GRCs) with a racial quota.  At first this was a three-man requirement, but it steadily expanded from then on.  An already beleaguered Opposition now finds itself even more hard-pressed to assemble a credible crew of talent with which to contest the wards.  Whether this is a genuine attempt to ensure minority representation in Parliament that conveniently makes life more difficult for the Opposition, or an engineered measure to further marginalize their presence, I'll leave to you to decide.  It is already telling that such a grey area has resulted from this modification of our constitution, but that's not the focus of my article today.

Instead, I'm going to talk about what I looked for and found in our constitution, that paralleled the American 1st Amendment.  I had a feeling that article would provide us with an insightful reflection of our culture, just as its American counterpart does for the USA.  Sure enough:

As you can see, I've italicized the portion of the article that discusses our freedom, and it's obviously overwhelmed by the caveats which frame that portion; the fine print, so to speak, that actually restricts this freedom.  Contrast this to the short, simple statement of the 1st Amendment that can afford to be so concise because it is so inviolable.  Our constitution offers us the hope of such a freedom, then proceeds to overwhelm it with conditions, limits, reminders, requirements, all of which revolve around some vague definition of what constitutes an endangerment of 'the security of Singapore...public order or morality'.  Oh yes, and no one can freely come together to discuss and take action over their jobs or their schools.  In the interests of this all-encompassing 'public order or morality', no one can truly exercise their right to peaceful speech and assembly.  In the interests of 'public order or morality', holding up placards labelled "HDB", "EDB" and "NKF" is obviously dangerous, incendiary and morally abhorrent, hence the application for a permit to do so must be rejected, and if you go ahead anyway, you're in trouble.  This is exactly what Singapore is like.  It offers us some hope for freedom, then dashes it with all sorts of caveats.  Just think:


The list could go on for far longer than that, but I'm sure you get the gist.  They tell us one thing but seem to show us so many other things that prevent us from claiming that first hope of freedom, that first glimpse of a constitutional right.

The constitution, at the end of the day, is not responsible for our political culture, or lack thereof.  It is merely a reflection of how we have grudged ourselves some little freedom, only to have the spirit of that freedom lost and mired in qualifiers that are loose enough to be interpreted in a variety of ways - a large enough variety that we shrink in space, back into our corners, for fear of being a victim of loose interpretation.  The prospect of upsetting 'public order and morality' because our bogeyman.  I suppose an apt analogy would be of a parent who tells his teenage daughter: "You can date.  But you must wear long skirts, long-sleeved and high-necked blouses, you can only date someone of your own race and your own religion, you must not kiss, you must be in a public place at all times, you must be back at six, and if you do anything that qualifies as indecent you will not be allowed to date at all." I wonder if we'll ever be ready to say:

"You're an adult now.  You can date.  End of story - have fun!"

Granted - this won't come overnight.  Many are prone to being suspicious of free speech in Singapore.  It's often vigorously painted as a Pandora's Box which, once opened, can't be closed, and will wreak havoc in our carefully stable society.  Well then, I suggest taking a first step to test the waters: abolish the permit system.  In its place, have laws to punish those who assemble and upset 'public order or morality' (and while we're at it, we should definitely redefine what that is so no one can interpret it to mean 'if you don't agree with me, hush up').  Have a reactive law, one that punishes after the crime has been committed, rather than a loosely-worded and ill-defined preventive one.  That way people breathe more easily when stepping up to voice their opinions, but are still held responsible for what they say because they may be reported for slander or hate speech.  It's certainly more progressive than the status quo.  Too dangerous - won't work? But I've seen something that makes me think it will. 

Where?

The racist bloggers.  That's one issue that always riles me when the international media brings it up.  They only ever say "bloggers jailed under colonial-age anti-sedition law", conveniently neglecting to mention that they were jailed for posting in hate and bigotry.  But who was responsible, really responsible, for bringing Nicholas Lim and Benjamin Koh to court? A citizen; a member of the public who made that 999 call.  Not the government who first spotted and reacted, but one of us.  I had also been referred to Gan Huai Shi's blog before the whole issue exploded, and I briefly read through the barrage of comments left on his entries.  Not a single one I recall shared or espoused his views.  He was called 'childish', 'immature', 'attention-seeking'.  His views were shouted down and overwhelmed by the vast flood of people who rejected his words.  Who says Singaporeans can't decide? Who says any idiot who spouts his head off and incites violence in the name of ignorant hatred can wreak havoc in our midst? The matter of the racist bloggers having been brought to public attention, outcry and subsequent punishment left me convinced that we heard their foolery but we didn't embrace it.  Without even realizing it, we had faced our bogeyman.  Someone had disturbed public order and morality, and no one rioted or died because of it.  Not because it was prevented in time, because it wasn't - but because it happened, and we responded to it; we denounced it.

So why not have reactive laws that keep us accountable, instead of preventive ones that keep us afraid?