Law and Regional Development in ASEAN: A Singapore Perspective
[This piece is destined for publication in Japanese in a book on regional law and development, published by Nagoya University. It is currently being translated. It will also appear shortly as a Working Paper of the Centre for Asian Legal Studies at NUS, and Hien and I are looking for a law-and-development outlet for a further version of the piece. If you have ever wondered whether Singapore does anything to contribute to law and development regionally, this piece answers the question affirmatively. It has been such a total pleasure working with charming Bui Hien when she was based at CALS.]
By
Andrew Harding and Hien Bui[1]
In Southeast Asia, as elsewhere, the various states have had
somewhat different development trajectories. They have also had differing sets
of legal resources and legal experiences. These resources and experiences are
reflected in how they regard the relationship between law and development and
in particular, how important and relevant they regard the rule of law as it
pertains to development. They also
mirror what states really mean by the rule of law. In law and development (LAD),
it is by no means unusual to find that the individual experiences of states are
reflected in the types of activity they undertake. Thus, it is noted that
Japanese LAD tends to reflect Japanese ideas, American LAD reflects American
ideas, and so on.[2]
Of course, logically, there is no conclusive reason why experience or theory in
one nation would necessarily be beneficial, or even relevant, to another. But
the real reason appears to be that ‘self-imaging LAD’, if we may call it that,
is also in the interests of the ‘donor’ country. Seen in worse light it has
even been called neo-colonialism.[3] If a country’s own legal
models are replicated, it not only makes legal transactions and diplomacy much
easier, but also provides opportunities for that country’s law firms and LAD
personnel, spreads soft power, and so on. Self-imaging LAD is therefore not so
much a theory of LAD as it is an inevitable mode of its practice. Our use of LAD in this chapter does not infer
the original and somewhat limited meaning that sees LAD as legal technology
transfer from a ‘donor’ country or international agency to a ‘donee’,
‘developing’ or ‘less developed’, country. Indeed, we find that in Singapore’s
case LAD is properly regarded as occurring at many different levels and in many
different modes. In some of these LAD may even be an unfamiliar concept. We
recognise that even a potentially broader than usual definition has a penumbra
of uncertainty. For example, we found in our empirical survey of LAD in Singapore
that Singapore engages in a good deal of training for public officials that
might not immediately appear to have a LAD aspect, in that it does not have
overtly ‘legal’ content; but in practice this spreading of Singapore’s values
in the sphere of public service tends to enhance legal capacity in a broader
sense, and trends towards good governance, integrity, and the rule of law. While
many see the rule of law as valuable in itself, it is seen by recipients of its
value as serving a variety of ends. Such training programmes can therefore be
seen, legitimately in our view, as part of LAD. We therefore outline in this
chapter a ‘multi-level’ approach to LAD in Singapore which, as we have
explained, does not define LAD according to the usual definition, but which
sees many different agencies and initiatives taking place at various governmental
and societal levels.
Of all the ASEAN states, Singapore is by far the most
prosperous, being listed as a high-income state.[4] It is the only state in
ASEAN, apart perhaps from Thailand,[5] that is in a position to
devote significant resources to regional development and to LAD activity. The
Singapore Government has always seen the rule of law and legal institutions as
part of the ‘software’ that has enabled the city-state to improve its GDP per
capita about 100-fold between 1965 (when Singapore became an independent
republic) and 2010.[6] Having
long since ceased to have the status of a ‘developing country’,[7] Singapore is now a ‘donor’
rather than a ‘donee’ state. It is also a state that has espoused the rule of
law and good governance in a deeply embedded fashion. Despite the overt notion
of a state based on Confucian values,[8] it is in practice legalism,
and legal certainty, that govern society, administration, and all private transactions
in Singapore, and orientate it to the rule of law as a universal value as well
as one that serves Singapore’s own development.[9] Demands on and
opportunities for Singapore in the LAD field are also emphasised by its
position within ASEAN as not simply the most prosperous state, but as a leader
in legal expertise, having a deep interest in regional legal integration.[10] Singapore sees itself as
a legal hub for the region,[11] much like The Hague,
which has achieved such status in the context of international law. Examples of
this are the Singapore International Commercial Court, the Singapore
International Arbitration Centre, and the Singapore International Medication
Centre. In Singapore’s case, there is no doubt that it regards LAD in practice as
based squarely on the rule of law.[12] This reflects Singapore’s
own experience. The rule of law is also widely seen in Singapore as the answer
to the region’s problems in the field of law and development. Advancing the
rule of law amongst the ASEAN states is clearly very much in Singapore’s
interests, and is perceived in Singapore to be decidedly in the interests of
the other ASEAN states and also as a binding force for ASEAN.[13]
It is therefore interesting, and the major purpose of this
chapter, to see whether in the case of Singapore we can identify a LAD policy or
a set of LAD policies, and to what extent such policy reflects Singapore’s own developmental
experience. Singapore is, of course, limited by its size and population in
terms of what it is able to do in this area; but as was indicated above, it
does nonetheless have considerable resources to bring to bear – professional,
legal, and financial – as well as compelling interests to protect or advance. Various
institutions in Singapore, public, government-linked, and private, pursue
regional development using their own expertise to benefit the region’s poorer
states; and this is as true of LAD as it is of other areas of development, for
example in the medical field or in public administration. Given the importance
of Singapore’s government-linked companies and the fact that the government is
Singapore’s biggest shareholder, we cannot in Singapore draw the neat
distinction between the public and private sectors that might be appropriate
elsewhere. Professional bodies, such as the Law Society of Singapore, are also
relevant. Accordingly, we need to look at a range of different institutions in
order to discover what we choose to call Singapore’s ‘multi-layered approach’
to LAD. One important lesson that may be drawn from this is that, consonantly
with the diversity of contemporary approaches to and definitions of LAD[14] there may be many
players, many agendas, and many modes in which LAD operates. In Singapore, LAD
is not formalised but smoothly and implicitly crosses public, private, and
state-to-state frameworks to deliver effective assistance without tutorialising
and without coercion. We find, however, that LAD clearly does actually occur at
a meaningful level, irrespective of whether it represents an overt policy. We
were unable in our research to find a single express statement of LAD policy by
a Singapore Government representative in Parliament or in the media. LAD policy
in Singapore therefore has to be inferred from behaviour and from indirect
statements on the issue of LAD. We therefore describe in what follows the
various ways in which LAD is pursued in
practice by various entities in Singapore. This has not been done explicitly
before, to the best of our knowledge, and may well, we hope, be of interest to
LAD practitioners, officials, and scholars. We
reiterate that the term ‘law’ in LAD needs to be read contextually; some
aspects of development may well have legal implications and objectives even if
not traditionally regarded analytically as part of LAD. In this respect our
definition needs to be wider than is conventional in order to capture that
which is significant. The Singapore Cooperation Programme, discussed below, is
a good example of the artificiality of distinguishing the legal from the
non-legal in this context.
Finally in this introduction we advert to the fact that our
survey of LAD Singapore-style is unlikely to have captured the totality of the activity
undertaken. This is precisely because of the prevailing multi-level approach.
There will without doubt be many layers that are unsung and known only to the
participants and beneficiaries of the relevant activities. We regard this as
symptomatic of the ‘new law and development’[15] in which LAD has become
multi-faceted and multi-directional, rendering somewhat unobvious the epistemology
around its nature and extent.
Singapore’s
unheralded development agencies and their law-related programmes
Singapore was, of course, one of the founding members of
ASEAN, which was established in 1967 mainly for the purpose of accelerating the
economic growth and promoting peace and security between its state members, now
10 in number.[16]
However, ASEAN’s missions and visions have evolved and expanded overtime. From a mere facilitator for creating wealth,
peace and security, ASEAN has developed to see itself as an integrated
community that puts people in the centre of its concerns.[17] During the ASEAN-community-building process,
Singapore in recent years has become more and more involved in LAD work with
ASEAN at the regional level, and (much more significantly) with ASEAN countries
at the bilateral level.[18]
It also sometimes acts as an assisting third party to bilateral activity
between an ASEAN and a non-ASEAN state.[19]
Singapore does not, however, have an equivalent of the
United States’ USAID, Australia’s AUSAID, Japan’s JAICA, the UK’s DfID, or
Sweden’s SIDA. There is, in other words, no bureaucracy devoted to
international or regional development as such. Nonetheless, there are many
agencies in Singapore that direct attention to regional development projects, and
many of those are concerned with law, even if they do not specifically call
their activity LAD. These include the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the Ministry
of Law, the courts, the Attorney-General’s Chambers, the Law Society of
Singapore, the Singapore Academy of Law, the Temasek Foundation, the Singapore
International Arbitration Centre, and the law schools at the National
University of Singapore (NUS) and Singapore Management University (SMU), as
well as the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy at NUS.
Legal capacity-building appears in fact to be the main
area of support that Singapore has been providing for ASEAN countries. This
support has been delivered in various forms, including exchange
of legal materials, legal drafting assistance, study visits, training
workshops, collaborative seminars and symposia. Most of the assistance from Singapore is
directed to Cambodia, Laos, Myanmar, and Vietnam (known as the ‘CLMV’ group of
states that, having a lower level of development than the original six member
states, joined ASEAN in the mid-1990s). Among these country beneficiaries, this
study reveals that Myanmar has been given the most attention and support in
terms of capacity-building and judicial reform. Until recently Myanmar was an
infrequent recipient of international assistance, but Singapore’s involvement
with Myanmar goes back many years and is intensified in the legal field by the
fact the two countries share a common law heritage.[20]
This LAD activity is geared to legal development in terms
of statute law and institutional development towards the rule of law and good
governance. These are seen as having specifically economic outcomes, but occasionally
also the Singapore Government puts pressure on ASEAN countries to improve their
human rights practice.[21]
A major effort in this respect has been the Singapore
Cooperation Program (SCP), established by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in
1992. The express mission of this programme is to share Singapore’s development
experience and provide support to other developing countries. The SCP is
designed to build capacity in fields that could smooth the developmental path
of these states. For the last two decades, the SCP has facilitated and
sponsored a number of training events for ASEAN countries that have an LAD
component. Most of the training is focused
on the following topics:
i)
Court excellence
ii)
Advanced note-taking and project
proposal writing
iii)
Public policy and administrative reform
iv)
Social policy management
v)
Sustainable development and transport planning
The ASEAN states who are beneficiaries of this are the
CLMV states.[22]
On a bilateral level, the Singapore Government has
engaged in assisting individual ASEAN countries. The bilateral development projects vary amongst
different countries but share some common areas, ranging from the exchange of
legal materials and study visits, to collaborative seminars, symposia, and provision
of scholarships. Bilateral collaboration between Singapore and the assisted
countries is often organised formally by signing a Memorandum of Understanding
(MoU) at the ministry level. For example, Myanmar and Singapore have signed two
official MoUs: the Singapore-Myanmar
Integrated Legal Exchange between the Ministry of Law and the Myanmar Supreme
Court; and a legal cooperation MoU between the Ministry of Law and the Myanmar
Attorney-General’s Office.[23]
The MoUs seek to enhance greater understanding of the laws, legal systems, and
legal and judicial institutions of Singapore and Myanmar.[24]
These objectives were achieved through the exchange of legal materials, study
visits, collaborative seminars and symposiums, attachments, and scholarships
for Myanmar officials. They also expected the parties to the MoUs to develop
collaborative education, training, and knowledge transfer to enhance the mutual
cooperation between the two countries.[25]
Apart from Myanmar, Vietnam has also received assistance from Singapore
in the field of legal and judicial reforms. In particular, Singapore and
Vietnam have signed an Agreement on Legal and Judicial Cooperation (March 2008). This cooperation aims for Singapore and
Vietnam to collaborate in a wide range of areas which include the drafting and
administration of laws, development of legal and judicial expertise,
development and promotion of domestic and international dispute resolution
mechanisms, including arbitration and mediation, and legal and judicial administration.
Cooperation
between the two countries can take various forms, including the exchange of
legal materials and publications, exchange of visits between relevant personnel
(for example judges, academics, and legal practitioners) and the promotion of
interaction through lectures, conferences, seminars and symposia.[26]
The Singapore Government has also assisted the Laos Government to create
sustainable economic growth and alleviate poverty. Singapore has played a supporting role
through the provision of human-resource training, providing scholarships, and
sharing of experiences. More than 4000 Lao officials have participated in
training courses and study visits since 1993 under the SCP. Areas of training range from English language
training to information technology, civil aviation, and trade promotion. These
latter three activities have important legal components. Under the Initiative
for ASEAN Integration (IAI) launched by then Singapore Prime Minister Goh Chok
Tong in November 2001, Singapore established the Lao-Singapore Training Centre
(LSTC) in Vientiane to increase training opportunities for Lao officials.
Since the LSTC was set up in 2001, almost 3000 Lao officials have been trained
there. Even though the initiatives did
not specially focus on legal and judicial reforms, they helped to enhance the
working capacity of Lao governmental officials, and indirectly to facilitate
LAD via their significant roles in LAD in Laos.[27]
In this sense LAD Singapore-style is not distinguished from development assistance
in general.
Mediation skills are
another area of capacity-building that the Singapore Government has focused on
when training judges in Myanmar. A number of training workshops has been conducted
in close collaboration between the Singapore Ministry of Law and Singapore Mediation
Centre.[28] Beneficiaries of this initiative were 27 Myanmar
judges and judicial officers from the Office of the Supreme Court of the Union,
the Office of the Judicial Supervision of the Union, the Office of the Chief
Justice of the Union, and the District Courts and Township Courts. The
objectives of the workshops are to share the experiences of the mediation
mechanism for disputes being practised in Singapore courts, and to study the
feasibility of these methods for use in Myanmar.[29]
Initiatives by Singapore’s courts
Whereas the SCP is an initiative of the Ministry of
Foreign Affairs, LAD is specifically catered for signally by the collaborative
efforts by the judiciary of Singapore that
are initiated by the Supreme Court of Singapore.
The main activity of the
Supreme Court to assist ASEAN countries is capacity-building for judges. In
February 2016 the Supreme Court of Singapore organised training for ASEAN
judges on alternative dispute resolution. This was considered a high-profile
training programme since it was a joint project of all the most important
stakeholders in the field, including the International Centre of Excellence for
the Practice and Profession of Alternative Dispute Resolution (CIArb), the
Supreme Court of Singapore, and the SCP.
The programme clearly demonstrates Singapore’s efforts in building the knowledge
and capacity of judges amongst all the ASEAN states.
In 2015 and 2016, the
Supreme Court of Singapore also sponsored and organised an international
training programme called ‘Excellence in Judicial Education and Research’.[30] The programme is operated directly by the
Singapore Judicial College (SJC), which is established under the auspices of
the Supreme Court of Singapore.
According to SJC’s statistics, there have been more than 450 foreign
judges and officials from more than 50 countries, including the other nine
ASEAN countries, who have been beneficiaries of the training programmes.[31]
Besides all the training programmes that brought together judges and officials
from different countries, SJC and the Supreme Court also organised training
classes for specific ASEAN countries. For example, training on the
international framework for court excellence was organised specially for local
officials in the CLMV countries. Apart from the popular training topic on judicial
excellence, the Supreme Court also delivered training on parliamentary law,
rules and practices for Laos and Myanmar as a part of the Singapore Ministry of
Foreign Affairs’ Initiative for ASEAN Integration.[32]
Apart from sponsoring
and conducting training events, the Supreme Court of Singapore has also been
active in facilitating the information network between ASEAN judges on trans-national
children disputes, which is expected to provide information on children-related
issues and judicial training.[33]
Tracing back its reports from the year 2000
to date, Singapore Attorney-General’s Chambers (AGC) have been very actively
involved with ASEAN states. However, most of AGC activities focus on foreign
trade and investment, as opposed to other areas of development. From 2010 onwards AGC started to represent
Singapore in collaborating with other ASEAN Member States in developing law
relating to regional development, for example, the ASEAN Convention on
Trafficking in Persons and the Regional Plan of Action.[34]
AGC had also been actively involved in the negotiations for the ASEAN Human
Rights Declaration.[35]
At the bilateral level, there were several
exchanges between AGC and offices of the Government of Myanmar, for example, a
visit by delegation members of the Supreme Court of the Union and Union
Attorney-General’s Office in December 2013. The delegation came to Singapore to
learn about the use of information and communications technology in the
judicial and legal systems.[36]
Such delegation visits from ASEAN states to various judicial and legal
institutions in Singapore are too numerous to be recorded here but they provide
valuable insights for the delegations and a basis for further cooperation.
Projects of Singapore’s law schools
Legal education is one of the
biggest areas of LAD support that Singapore has been providing to the ASEAN
states.
Singapore’s own legal
education system has evolved in such a way as to fully embrace Singapore
connectedness with the rest of Asia and the future needs of its legal
profession and judiciary. Both NUS and SMU offer core teaching in the legal
systems of Asia, which include those of the ASEAN countries as well as those of
South and North East Asia.[37]
One of the best-known
initiatives in this area is the ‘ASEAN Scholarship’, a variety of scholarship
given to law students coming to Singapore from ASEAN countries to study. Singapore’s
two law schools practising in this scheme (NUS,[38]
SMU[39])
are the two most popular destinations for ASEAN scholars in Singapore.
In regard to support
for legal education more generally, Myanmar has so far been the biggest
recipient of Singapore’s expertise. In February 2014, as a result of
collaboration between Singapore’s Ministry of Law and Myanmar’s Ministry of
Foreign Affairs, the two law schools in Singapore signed MoUs with two law
schools in Myanmar (the Law Departments of Yangon and Mandalay Universities)
committing them to cooperation in the development of legal education in Myanmar.
The MOUs aim to promote cooperation in legal education between the four universities
with key areas of cooperation including faculty exchanges, study visits,
curriculum planning and design, and pedagogy, as well as enhancement of legal
research and development of resources.[40]
The theory behind these efforts is that legal education development is
essential underpinning for the longer-term general sustainability of legal and
institutional reforms, and therefore the rule of law.
Projects by specialist legal
research centres
The Centre for International Law
(CIL) at NUS has been working on legal issues in ASEAN as one of their main
areas of focus. The ‘ASEAN Integration through Law: The ASEAN Way in a Comparative
Context’ (ITL) project has been one of CIL’s major research activities during
its initial years. The ITL project examines the role of law and the rule of law
in Asian legal integration. The project involves over 70 researchers from Asia
and around the world. The outcomes of
the project support the efforts of ASEAN member states to achieve the ASEAN
Community. The ITL project has undertaken research on the Rule of Law in the
ASEAN Community, and Plenary and Course Development Workshop on the ASEAN
Economic Community, ASEAN and human rights, and other topics.[41]
Since CIL is directly funded by the Ministry of Law, CIL’s interest and
activities could be seen as equating to the interest of the Singapore Government
in ASEAN law, development and integration.
The Yusoff Ishak Institute of Southeast Asian Studies (ISEAS) has a
general mission to stimulate research and debate within scholarly circles,
enhance public awareness of the region, and facilitate the search for viable
solutions to the varied problems confronting the region. For ASEAN, the institute seeks to promote
greater understanding of ASEAN and to contribute toward regional cooperation
and integration. The Centre conducts studies and provides inputs to
stakeholders on issues and matters that call for collective ASEAN actions and
responses, especially those pertinent to building the ASEAN Community. Apart from working on ASEAN region, the Institute
concentrates on five ASEAN countries individually - Indonesia, Malaysia,
Thailand, Vietnam and Myanmar. For each
country, ISEAS navigated their work to fit the nation’s contemporary and hotly
debated topics, ranging from political dynamics, social change, and cultural
trends to political and economic reform, and many more. Activities are also
various, including conferences, workshops, seminars, print and e-publications,
and timely commentary in the international and local media.[42]
This research highlights areas for policy development and legal change, and
also provides insight into areas of change within ASEAN.[43]
International Bridges to Justice’s Singapore Justice
Training Centre
International
Brides to Justice established the Singapore Justice Training Centre (SJTC) to
be the regional hub of the organization in ASEAN. As one
of the first NGOs invited to work in Singapore under the government’s
International Organizations Development Scheme in 2010, IBJ has developed
partnerships with numerous private and public entities, including Singapore’s
Ministry of Foreign Affairs, academic institutions and law firms, to lead
training programmes and other events.[44]
Criminal Justice is the major area of expertise where the SJTC has supported
ASEAN countries. The inaugural event for
SJTC delivered a training workshop that gathered participants from Cambodia,
Indonesia, Laos, Malaysia, Philippines, Singapore, Thailand, and Vietnam.
Apart from criminal justice training, SJTC has also put forward other
initiatives to support ASEAN countries’ legal improvement. For example, eLearning was one of the SJTC’s
other major achievements. It
successfully launched 50 eLearning modules in the three years to 30 June 2013.
The modules are specific to seven ASEAN countries, namely Cambodia, Indonesia,
Laos, Myanmar, the Philippines, Thailand and Vietnam, as well as India. The
topics covered by the modules include the rights of the accused, the rights and
obligations of defense attorneys, attorney-client relations, the presumption of
innocence, defences, evidence, cross-examination, complaint procedures,
pre-trial detention, investigative torture, and preventing torture.[45]
Again, amongst the ASEAN members, Myanmar received special assistance
from this organisation. There were programmes called ‘Legal Aid System Training
for Myanmar’ and the ‘Regional Legal Aid Forum’ that were designed only for
Myanmar. While the Legal Aid System Training was attended by high-level
government officials and lawyers from the civil society, which marked an
unprecedented and progressive step for Myanmar towards legal aid and criminal
justice system, the Forum was an unique platform for meaningful engagement
between government officials and young lawyers where open discussions and a
shared learning experience.[46]
Anti – Corruption efforts by Singapore Government
For a
decade from 2006 to 2016, Singapore has ranked highly in the global scale on anti-corruption.[47]
The country has constantly been praised as one of the most successful models –
a “shining example” on rooting out corruption, using tough approach and comprehensive
strategies.[48] The strategies that Singapore has employed
either directly focus on improving laws for effective anti-corruption; or
concentrate on other law related measures, including adjudication to punish and
deter those who are prone to corruption; effective administration to reduce
opportunities for corruption; and effective enforcement agencies.[49]
Anti-corruption is an area that cannot be ignored while considering
Singapore’s effort in LAD for ASEAN countries.
A corruption-free system at all levels has been seen by Singapore as an
indispensable part of a meaningful rule of law. Therefore, Singapore’s regional
and bilateral efforts in this field fall into the same pattern of LAD as other
areas mentioned above, demonstrating Singapore’s leadership and interest in
enhancing law in the development of other ASEAN countries. However, while Singapore has, as we have
seen, been taking initiatives to approach and assist ASEAN countries in other
fields, for example legal research and education, strong willingness and direct
demand for support have also come from ASEAN countries. For example, Vietnam has
proactively reached out for Singapore for technical assistance on
anti-corruption measures, which is expected to be delivered by training
courses, seminars and high-level exchanges.[50]
The effort to help
ASEAN countries fighting corruption has been implemented by the Corrupt
Practices Investigation Bureau (CPIB).
This is a government agency with independent capacity for the
investigation and prevention of corruption in Singapore.[51]
As with other
fields such as legal research and education, through the CPIB, Singapore’s assistance
to enhance ASEAN’s countries’ capacity to combat corruption has been focused on
three main interrelated areas, including capacity-building, enhancing mutual
sharing, and strengthening collaborative efforts on anti-corruption. The foci
have been implemented through a variety of events and activities: study visits,
participating in seminars, organising international workshops. Singapore also actively establishes good
working relationships with its ASEAN member counterparts in the areas of
anti-corruption laws and legal enforcement.[52] At a more official level, CPIB acted on
behalf of Singapore’s government to sign bilateral MOUs with some ASEAN
countries to enhance mutual sharing, capacity-building and strengthening of
collaborative efforts in anti-corruption matters.[53]
Anti-corruption has long been a significant matter in Singapore’s
national development and rule of law.
Its comprehensive approach to combat corruption and the active
assistance it has provided to ASEAN countries has mirrored Singapore’s own
interest. All these efforts, therefore, illustrate Singapore ‘self-imaging’ approach
to law and development.
Conclusion
From the brief
survey above of LAD-related activity in Singapore, a number of things are
apparent.
First, these
efforts strongly reflect Singapore’s own experience of the rule of law and the
role of law in development. The Singapore Government believes the rule of law
to be a universal value, but also a matter of pragmatically building the
institutions required to entrench it. This occasionally includes diverging from
the rule of law where it is perceived to be necessary, as with the Internal
Security Act 1960, which provides for preventive detention.
Secondly,
Singapore does not announce prominently or widely proclaim its LAD activity as
a model or even as representing the impressive record that it undoubtedly is.
We may infer from this that Singapore sees LAD as a mode of entirely voluntary
cooperation, not an area for any form of coercion. Nonetheless Singapore
clearly believes that an ASEAN based on the rule of law will be highly
beneficial to Singapore and to ASEAN.
Thirdly, Singapore
has a multi-level approach in which its existing institutions, government,
judicial, professional, civil-society, and academic, have various roles to
play.
Fourthly,
Singapore’s efforts are mainly, although not exclusively, aimed at the CLMV
countries, Myanmar in particular. This reflects an historic close relationship
between the two countries as well as the facts that Myanmar’s needs are greater
than the other states, and that Myanmar’s opening since 2011 creates a space
for those needs to be met.
Fifthly, Singapore
sees corruption as a major problem, and effective anti-corruption measures as
part of building an effective rule of law in ASEAN. This too reflects
Singapore’s own values and experience of developing the rule of law.
As part of
attempts to gauge how LAD has changed in recent years, we believe that
Singapore’s experience and approach should be seriously considered comparatively
in the context of the new law and development.
[1] Andrew Harding is Professor of
Law at the National University of Singapore. Hien Bui is a public interest lawyer and researcher. At the outset of
this writing the authors were respectively Director and Research
Associate at the Centre for Asian Legal Studies, National University of
Singapore. The authors would like to thank Associate Professor Ho Peng Kee,
NUS, for his assistance.
[2] V Taylor, 'Japan's legal technical
assistance: A different modernization narrative?', in David K Linnan (ed), Legitimacy,
Legal Development and Change: Law and Modernization Reconsidered
(Ashgate Publishing Ltd, Surrey, England, 235; V Taylor, 'Displacing
"development": The new agenda for rule of law assistance', Northwestern University Law Review, vol.
104, no. 257, pp. 260-261; V Taylor,
‘Rule-of-Law assistance discourse and practice: Japanese inflections’, in A
Perry-Kessaris (ed.), Law in the Pursuit of Development: Principles into
practice?
(Abingdon and New York, Routledge, 2010), 161-179; S Humphreys, Theatre of the Rule of Law: Transnational Legal Intervention in Theory
and Practice (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010)
[3] Humphreys, above n.2, 112.
[4] According to the 2015 Legaltum
Prosperity Index, Singapore’s economy ranked 17th among 142
countries across the globe and 1st in the ASEAN region: http://www.prosperity.com/#!/ranking;
see also The Straits Times,
‘Singapore Among Top 20 Nations in Global Prosperity Index, Its Economy is
No.1’ ST (2 November 2015) <http://www.straitstimes.com/business/singapore-among-top-20-nations-in-global-prosperity-index-its-economy-is-no-1>(both accessed 18 April
2017).
[5] For which, see ch.7.
[6] See, e.g., Lee Kuan Yew, ‘The
Secret of Good Government’, ch.4 of Han Fook Kwang, W. Fernandez, and S. Tan
(eds), Lee Kuan Yew: The Man and His
Ideas (Singapore, Times Editions, 1998).
[7] As is acknowledged by Lee Kuan
Yew in the very title of one of his books, From
Third World to First: The Singapore Story 1965-2000 (Harper Collins, New
York, 2000) See also A. Harding and C. Carter, ‘Cutting Through the Complexity:
The Singapore Model of Law and Development’, ch.13 of A. Perry-Kessaris and J.
Hatchard (ed), Law and Development:
Facing Complexity in the 21st Century (Cavendish, London, 2003).
In fact the World Bank has in fact abandoned the distinction between developed
and developing countries: <http://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/world/world-bank-no-longer/2795642.html> (accessed 18 April 2017).
[8] Tu Weiming, Confucian Ethics Today: The Singapore Challenge (Federal
Publications, Singapore, 1984).
[9] K Shanmugam, ‘The Rule of Law in
Singapore’, [2012] Singapore Journal of
Legal Studies 357.
[10] We do not in this chapter
discuss regional integration, on which there are now 13 books in the series.However,
without doubt the LAD efforts discussed here are designed, by building capacity
and encouraging cooperation, to serve, if not actually accomplish, the
objective of regional integration through law. In addition Singapore’s Academy
of Law recently established the Asian Business Law Institute, whose objectives
are to research integration issues for Asia generally, and propose solutions: Asian
Business Law Institute, ‘Singapore Hosts Inaugural International Conference on
Convergence of Asian Business Laws’ ABLI
(20 January 2016) <http://abli.asia/NEWS-EVENTS/Whats-New/ID/12>
(accessed 18 April 2017).
[11] S. Menon, ‘Transnational Commercial
Law: Realities, Challenges and a Call for Meaningful Convergence’, [2013] Singapore Journal of Legal Studies 231.
[12] Shanmugam, above n.9.
[13] See, further, ch.1; W. Woon, The ASEAN Charter: A Commentary (NUS Press, Singapore, 2015).
[14]
S. Newton, ‘Law and Development,
Law and Economics, and the Fate of Legal Technical Assistance', in J.M. Otto et al
(eds.), Lawmaking for
Development: Explorations into the Theory and Practice of International
Legislative Projects (Leiden University Press, Leiden, 2008), 23.
[15] D. Trubek and A. Santos (ed), The New Law and Economic Development: A
Critical Appraisal (New Tork, Cambridge University Press, 2006).
[16]
ASEAN, ‘ASEAN Member States’ <http://asean.org/asean/asean-member-states/>
(accessed 18 April 2017).
[17]
ASEAN, ASEAN Community Vision 2025:
see http://www.asean.org/storage/images/2015/November/aec-page/ASEAN-Community-Vision-2025.pdf
(accessed 18 April 2017).
[18]
Robert L. Rau, ‘The Role of Singapore in ASEAN’ 3:2 ISEAS - Yusof Ishak
Institute 99-112 (1981) <https://www.jstor.org/stable/25797655?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents>
(accessed 18 April 2016)
[20] Myint Zan, ‘Rule of Law Concepts
in Burma’s Constitutions and Actual Practice: No Ground for Optimism’, ch.2 of
A. Harding (ed), Constitutionalism and Legal
Change in Myanmar (Hart Publishing, Oxford, 2017), at 29, n.17.
[21]
Singapore
took the lead in pressuring Laos to expedite investigation into disappearance
of Sombath Somphone: http://aseanmp.org/2014/04/18/asean-urged-to-follow-singapores-lead-in-pressuring-laos-to-expedite-investigation-into-disappearance-of-sombath-somphone/#respond
(accessed 18 April 2017). For the ASEAN Human Rights Mechanism, see Tan
Hsien-li, The ASEAN Intergovernmental
Commission on Human Rights: Institutionalising Human Rights in Southeast Asia (Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge, 2011); Hien Bui, ‘The ASEAN Human
Rights System: A Critical Anlaysis’, 11:1 Asian
Journal of Comparative Law 111 (2016).
[22]
Main areas of assistance are: Court Excellence; Advanced Note-Taking and
Project Proposal Writing; Public Policy And Administrative Reform;
Social
Policy Management; Sustainable Development & Transport Planning.
See Singapore Corporation Program, whose website can be found
at: <https://www.scp.gov.sg/content/scp/index.html> (accessed 18 April
2017).
[23]
The Straits Times, ‘Singapore and
Myanmar Boost Legal Cooperation through New Agreements’, 1 October 2014) <http://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/singapore-and-myanmar-boost-legal-cooperation-through-new-agreements>
(accessed 18 April 2017).
[24] In this connection, see, for
example, Y. Wong, Money Matters in
Myanmar: Banking and Finance Law and Practice (Singapore, LexisNexis,
2016); Chan Wing Cheong et al, Criminal
Law in Myanmar (Singapore, LexisNexis, 2017); Harding, above n.20.
[25]
See Ministry of Law Singapore, ‘Senior Minister of State for Law, Indranee
Rajah, Concludes Working Visit to Myanmar’ (10 October 2014) <https://www.mlaw.gov.sg/content/minlaw/en/news/press-releases/SMS-working-visit-to-myanmar.html>
(accessed 18 April 2017).
[26]
See Ministry of Law Singapore, ‘Press Release: Singapore and Vietnam Sign
Agreement on Legal and Judicial Cooperation’ (12 March 2008) <https://www.mlaw.gov.sg/content/minlaw/en/news/press-releases/singapore-and-vietnam-sign-agreement-on-legal-and-judicial-cooperation.html> (accessed 18
April 2017).
Embassy
of the Republic of Singapore, ‘Singapore Technical Cooperation with Lao PDR)
<https://www.mfa.gov.sg/content/mfa/overseasmission/vientiane/singapore_technical_cooperation.html>
(accessed 18 April 2017).
[28] See Singapore Mediation Centre
Website at <www.mediation.com.sg> (accessed 18 April 2017).
[29]
The Supreme Court of the Union of Myanmar, ‘Mediation Skills Workshops for
Judges’ (April 2015) <http://www.unionsupremecourt.gov.mm/?q=news/121> (accessed 18 April 2017).
[30]
See Supreme Court Singapore, ‘International Training Programmes 2016’ <http://www.supremecourt.gov.sg/sjc/judicial-education/international/2016>
(accessed 18 April 2017).
[31]
See Supreme Court Singapore, ‘International Alumni’ <http://www.supremecourt.gov.sg/sjc/collaboration/international-alumni>
(accessed 18 April 2017).
[33]
‘ASEAN Chief Justices Gather in HCM City’, Vietnam Pictorial (2 April 2016) <http://vietnam.vnanet.vn/english/asean-chief-justices-gather-in-hcm-city/225920.html>
(accessed
18 April 2017).
[34] See AGC Annual Report, 2013-14,
at <https://www.agc.gov.sg/DATA/0/docs/AnnualRep/2014/AGC_Annual_Report_2013-2014.pdf>
(accessed 18 April 2017).
[35] See AGC Annual Reports 2012 and
2010, at <https://www.agc.gov.sg/DATA/0/docs/AnnualRep/2012/AGC_Annual_Report%20_2012.pdf>;
<https://www.agc.gov.sg/DATA/0/docs/AnnualRep/AGC_Annual_Report_2010_2011%20v1%20090615.pdf>
(accessed 18 April 2017).
[36] Above, n.35.
[37] A. Harding and M. de Visser,
‘Teaching Comparative Law in Singapore’, in Hu Jiaxiang, A. Harding and M. de
Visser (eds), Legal Education in Asia: From Imitation to Innovation (Brill,
Leiden, forthcoming, 2018).
[38]
See National University of Singapore,’ NUS Graduate Scholarship for ASEAN
Nationals’ <http://www.nus.edu.sg/admissions/graduate-studies/scholarships-financial-aid-and-fees/scholarships-awards/nus-gsa.html>
(accessed 18 April 2017).
[39]
See Singapore Management University, ‘ASEAN Undergraduate Scholarship’ <https://admissions.smu.edu.sg/scholarships/asean-undergraduate-scholarship>
(accessed 18 April 2017).
[40]
See Ministry of Law Singapore, ‘Press Releases: Visit of Senior Minister of
State for Education and Law Indranee Rajah to Myanmar, 18 to 20 February 2014’
(18 February 2014) <https://www.mlaw.gov.sg/content/minlaw/en/news/press-releases/visit-of-SMS-to-myanmar-2014.html>
(accessed 18 April 2017).
[41]
See Centre for International Law, ‘Research Projects’ (25 March 2014) <https://cil.nus.edu.sg/research-projects/asean-law-policy/asean/>
(accessed 18 April 2017).
[42]
For these initiatives see the ISEAS website at https://www.iseas.edu.sg/ (accessed
18 April 2017).
[43]
Besides these two major centres, a number of joint events have been organised
by different centres and public and private sectors in order to discuss ASEAN
community and the UN Millennium Goals: see e.g., Human Rights Resource Centre,
‘HRRC, SMU, CALS, and ASEAN CSR Network Hold Side Event at the ASEAN Next-Gen
CSR Forum in Bali’ (5 February 2015) <http://hrrca.org/hrrc-smu-cals-and-asean-csr-network-hold-side-event-at-the-asean-next-gen-csr-forum-in-bali/>
(accessed 18 April 2017).
[44]
See International Bridges to Justice, ‘Singapore’ <http://www.ibj.org/where-we-work/singapore/>
(accessed 18 April 2017).
[47] See Trading Economics,
‘Singapore Corruption Rank 1995 – 2017’ <http://www.tradingeconomics.com/singapore/corruption-rank>
(accessed 18 April 2017).
[48] See ASEAN CSR Network,
‘Anti-Corruption Week 19-23 Sept 2016’ <http://www.asean-csr-network.org/c/news-a-resources/csr-news-from-around-asean/943-anti-corruption-week-19-23-sept-2016>
(accessed 18 April 2017);
International Bar Association, ‘Singapore: Fifty Years of the Rule of Law’ (7
October 2015) <http://www.ibanet.org/Article/Detail.aspx?ArticleUid=09014a7c-65ce-40ab-bdab-a7c443682083>
(accessed 18 April 2017);
see, further, Shanmugam, above n.9.
[50] ‘Vietnam Seeks Singapore’s Help
on Anti-Corruption’, Vietnam News (22
July 2015) http://vietnamnews.vn/society/273393/vn-seeks-singapores-help-on-anti-corruption.html#XRSy0ExREOefwQEv.99
(accessed
18 April 2017).
[51] See The Corrupt Practices
Investigation Bureau, ‘Roles & Functions’ CPIB <https://www.cpib.gov.sg/about-cpib/roles-and-functions>
(accessed 18 April 2017).
[52] Koh Teck Hin, ‘Corruption
Control in Singapore’, at <http://www.unafei.or.jp/english/pdf/RS_No83/No83_17VE_Koh1.pdf>
(accessed 18 April 2017).
[53] Ibid.
Comments
Post a comment