What do you think?
Rate this book
Cambridge Studies in Law and Society
威权式法治：新加坡的立法、话语与正当性
本书指出，新加坡缔造了一种匪夷所思的威权式法治。作者展示了作为法治以及自由民主之基石的制度和程序，是通过何种方式成为了制约异己、保护当政者的工具，但同时又无损于政府在国内和国际上的正当性。本书颠覆了在法律和政治领域的一些传统见解，它所展示的法律、权力、正当性的配置形式，可能对全球治理理论和政治产生深远影响。
- GenresLawPoliticsNonfiction
343 pages, Paperback
First published April 16, 2012
15 people are currently reading
207 people want to read
About the author
Jothie Rajah
2 booksJothie Rajah is a full-time appointee to faculty of the American Bar Foundation. She holds a Ph.D. from the University of Melbourne, Australia. She was awarded the Law Faculty's 2010 Harold Luntz Graduate Research Thesis Prize for her work, Legislating Illiberalism: Law, Discourse & Legitimacy in Singapore, which also won the University of Melbourne's Chancellor's Prize for Excellence in the PhD Thesis and an Honorable Mention in the Law and Society Association Dissertation Prize competition.
She is a graduate of the Faculty of Law, National University of Singapore, where she also graduated with Honours in English. Jothie has taught with the Legal Writing and Research Skills Programme of the Faculty of Law of the National University of Singapore, where she has also lectured on Hindu Legal Traditions. She has also taught with the English departments of the National University of Singapore, the Institute of Education and Open University, Singapore. Jothie has been a member of the consultancy team working on the official translations of Lao laws, a United Nations Development Project. In Melbourne, Jothie has guest lectured in undergraduate and postgraduate programmes at the Melbourne Law School. She is a co-ordinator of the Law and Society Association Collaborative Research Network on British Colonial Legalities.
She is a graduate of the Faculty of Law, National University of Singapore, where she also graduated with Honours in English. Jothie has taught with the Legal Writing and Research Skills Programme of the Faculty of Law of the National University of Singapore, where she has also lectured on Hindu Legal Traditions. She has also taught with the English departments of the National University of Singapore, the Institute of Education and Open University, Singapore. Jothie has been a member of the consultancy team working on the official translations of Lao laws, a United Nations Development Project. In Melbourne, Jothie has guest lectured in undergraduate and postgraduate programmes at the Melbourne Law School. She is a co-ordinator of the Law and Society Association Collaborative Research Network on British Colonial Legalities.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 10 of 10 reviews
February 15, 2020
Authoritarian Rule of Law: Legislation, Discourse and Legitimacy in Singapore, by Jothie Rajah, is an examination of Singapore's rule by law strategies with a close examination of four key pieces of legislation; The Vandalism Act, The Press Act, The Legal Professions Act, and the Religious Harmony Act . These acts have been used, in conjunction with the Internal Security Act, to ensure government control over discourse in the nation, and ensure that avenues of non-state discourse that compete with the government are suppressed. Protest, the press, lawyers and legal professionals, and the Catholic Church respectively were the targets of these Acts.
Singapore is currently one of the wealthiest nations in the world due to GDP per capita. It is a heavily developed, modern City State that is embedded in the global capitalist system, with a low crime rate, and high standard of living for its citizens. This affluence, however, comes at the cost of political freedoms. The nation is on paper a Westminster-style democracy with a legal and political system based off of its former British rulers. However, the People's Action Party (PAP) is the only political party that has held power in the nation since its independence. This is because many freedoms, such as speech, the press, political rights, and social rights have been curbed to ensure the only avenues for discourse and debate in the nation are controlled by the ruling party.
The first act, the Vandalism Act, was first put into place in the 1960's to suppress youth protests and Anti-war protests in relation to the Vietnam War. The government used this act to ensure charges could be laid against persons who displayed posters or graffiti with anti-government slogans. If found guilty, those charged would be caned. This act was used with particular effectiveness to curb popular displays of political discourse outside the standard forms of government in Singapore, and to target the Bahais Socialis - the opposition Socialist Party. Members of this party were accused of inciting or supporting these youth protests. Not only were students and children as young as 15 held and charged with vandalism -and subsequently caned, but so to were many of the leaders of the opposition party, who were arrested, harassed, or barred from entering politics, thus securing the rule of the PAP. This was largely accepted by the international community at the time as the government used anti-communist rhetoric to explain its actions. This Act was revived in the post-Cold War era to punish a group of teens for vandalizing cars, including teenagers from the United States and Hong Kong, causing an international scandal. Singapore upheld the punishments, including caning, for all involved, to curb what it called Western decadence and ensure the rigid social norms of Singapore were upheld.
The Press Act was enacted after criticism from local papers, particularly Chinese language papers advocating for greater rights for Chinese citizens in Singapore. This was a touchy issue for the government in Singapore, as one of its major claims to legitimacy is the harmony it ensures between Singapore's vibrant communities of people, including Chinese (74%), Malay (13%) and Indian (9%) communities. It was also targeted overtly at China, who in the 60's and 70's, had supported ethnic Chinese rebels in Malaysia against the Malaysian government. The Press Act allowed the government to arrest the owners of newspapers if the editorial content of the publication questioned government activity, and ensured that the press and media in Singapore would not speak out against government policy, or exercise an alternative to discourse. The Act also allowed the Singaporean government to manage and transfer shares in media companies as they saw fit - thus ensuring boards of directors and shareholders were incentivized to water down controversial content and keep discourse pro-government.
The Legal Profession Act targeted lawyers and legal professionals, in particular the Law Society of Singapore, who had been active in defending activists and accused during the enactment of the previous two pieces of legislation. The Society had also been active in public consultations over these and the Legal Profession Act. During these public consultations, the government changed tactic from listening and considering stakeholder advice, to targeting the Society in an accusatory tone, and treating the public hearing as a trial against the Society. The Act and its implementation ensured that legal professionals could not speak out against government policy, and had to keep defenses apolitical, thus neutering any discourse from the Judiciary and its staff.
Finally, the Religious Harmony Act had been implemented to target those causing religious discord. Confusingly, it had been implemented to target Catholic social workers who were accused of instigating a Communist Plot against the government (details given were mercurial). The police arrested a number of Catholic workers and jailed them. The Act was then put into place, with language mirroring the Internal Security Act, with a focus on religion.
These and other Acts are examined in the book closely. Rajah discuss' the importance of these acts in their effect on public discourse. The PAP in Singapore seems to be the sole controller of public discourse relating to politics, and brokers no dissent in this field. These Acts have been used to shut down discourse from the public (in terms of popular protest and political expression in the form of posters and advertisements), the press, legal professionals, and religious charity groups. All of these groups are traditional actors of discourse in the West, and ensure governments globally are held accountable for their actions, and are constrained by rule of law. Rajah argues that in Singapore, the government covers its control of discourse in the language and process of rule of law (ie. Westminster traditions, public consultations, and so on) while acting in fact through principles of rule by law. Rajah sees the system as authoritarian in nature, with the trappings of political freedom to try and obfuscate discourse from the international community, and ensure the citizens of Singapore are on board with the governments direction. Rajah argues with length and tact that Singapore has achieved great material wealth, but lacks civic society due to the constraints and controls placed on citizens by the government in a paternalistic fashion. The PAP has taken to heart the trappings of Liberalism (ie. rule by enlightened elite) without any of the freedoms of expression, press, or political discourse that often comes with it. This has been called many things, as I have seen in this and other texts, including illiberal democracy, Asian democracy, Communitarianism, authoritarian democracy, bureaucratic democracy and much more. Clearly, Singapore's government transcends traditional descriptors in some fashion, and engages both in Western Liberalism in discourse, and developmentalist authoritarianism in practice, in some fashion.
This was an interesting read on Singapore's political system with particular emphasis on four pieces of legislation used to suppress political discourse from non-state actors, and ensure PAP control over the space of political thought, language and expression in Singapore. A technical book at times, this in nonetheless and fairly straightforward read, with the author clearly laying out arguments, providing solid sourcing, and clearly stating their intent and bias at the books beginning. Well researched and written, this is a great book if one is looking to better understand Singapore's system of governance.
Singapore is currently one of the wealthiest nations in the world due to GDP per capita. It is a heavily developed, modern City State that is embedded in the global capitalist system, with a low crime rate, and high standard of living for its citizens. This affluence, however, comes at the cost of political freedoms. The nation is on paper a Westminster-style democracy with a legal and political system based off of its former British rulers. However, the People's Action Party (PAP) is the only political party that has held power in the nation since its independence. This is because many freedoms, such as speech, the press, political rights, and social rights have been curbed to ensure the only avenues for discourse and debate in the nation are controlled by the ruling party.
The first act, the Vandalism Act, was first put into place in the 1960's to suppress youth protests and Anti-war protests in relation to the Vietnam War. The government used this act to ensure charges could be laid against persons who displayed posters or graffiti with anti-government slogans. If found guilty, those charged would be caned. This act was used with particular effectiveness to curb popular displays of political discourse outside the standard forms of government in Singapore, and to target the Bahais Socialis - the opposition Socialist Party. Members of this party were accused of inciting or supporting these youth protests. Not only were students and children as young as 15 held and charged with vandalism -and subsequently caned, but so to were many of the leaders of the opposition party, who were arrested, harassed, or barred from entering politics, thus securing the rule of the PAP. This was largely accepted by the international community at the time as the government used anti-communist rhetoric to explain its actions. This Act was revived in the post-Cold War era to punish a group of teens for vandalizing cars, including teenagers from the United States and Hong Kong, causing an international scandal. Singapore upheld the punishments, including caning, for all involved, to curb what it called Western decadence and ensure the rigid social norms of Singapore were upheld.
The Press Act was enacted after criticism from local papers, particularly Chinese language papers advocating for greater rights for Chinese citizens in Singapore. This was a touchy issue for the government in Singapore, as one of its major claims to legitimacy is the harmony it ensures between Singapore's vibrant communities of people, including Chinese (74%), Malay (13%) and Indian (9%) communities. It was also targeted overtly at China, who in the 60's and 70's, had supported ethnic Chinese rebels in Malaysia against the Malaysian government. The Press Act allowed the government to arrest the owners of newspapers if the editorial content of the publication questioned government activity, and ensured that the press and media in Singapore would not speak out against government policy, or exercise an alternative to discourse. The Act also allowed the Singaporean government to manage and transfer shares in media companies as they saw fit - thus ensuring boards of directors and shareholders were incentivized to water down controversial content and keep discourse pro-government.
The Legal Profession Act targeted lawyers and legal professionals, in particular the Law Society of Singapore, who had been active in defending activists and accused during the enactment of the previous two pieces of legislation. The Society had also been active in public consultations over these and the Legal Profession Act. During these public consultations, the government changed tactic from listening and considering stakeholder advice, to targeting the Society in an accusatory tone, and treating the public hearing as a trial against the Society. The Act and its implementation ensured that legal professionals could not speak out against government policy, and had to keep defenses apolitical, thus neutering any discourse from the Judiciary and its staff.
Finally, the Religious Harmony Act had been implemented to target those causing religious discord. Confusingly, it had been implemented to target Catholic social workers who were accused of instigating a Communist Plot against the government (details given were mercurial). The police arrested a number of Catholic workers and jailed them. The Act was then put into place, with language mirroring the Internal Security Act, with a focus on religion.
These and other Acts are examined in the book closely. Rajah discuss' the importance of these acts in their effect on public discourse. The PAP in Singapore seems to be the sole controller of public discourse relating to politics, and brokers no dissent in this field. These Acts have been used to shut down discourse from the public (in terms of popular protest and political expression in the form of posters and advertisements), the press, legal professionals, and religious charity groups. All of these groups are traditional actors of discourse in the West, and ensure governments globally are held accountable for their actions, and are constrained by rule of law. Rajah argues that in Singapore, the government covers its control of discourse in the language and process of rule of law (ie. Westminster traditions, public consultations, and so on) while acting in fact through principles of rule by law. Rajah sees the system as authoritarian in nature, with the trappings of political freedom to try and obfuscate discourse from the international community, and ensure the citizens of Singapore are on board with the governments direction. Rajah argues with length and tact that Singapore has achieved great material wealth, but lacks civic society due to the constraints and controls placed on citizens by the government in a paternalistic fashion. The PAP has taken to heart the trappings of Liberalism (ie. rule by enlightened elite) without any of the freedoms of expression, press, or political discourse that often comes with it. This has been called many things, as I have seen in this and other texts, including illiberal democracy, Asian democracy, Communitarianism, authoritarian democracy, bureaucratic democracy and much more. Clearly, Singapore's government transcends traditional descriptors in some fashion, and engages both in Western Liberalism in discourse, and developmentalist authoritarianism in practice, in some fashion.
This was an interesting read on Singapore's political system with particular emphasis on four pieces of legislation used to suppress political discourse from non-state actors, and ensure PAP control over the space of political thought, language and expression in Singapore. A technical book at times, this in nonetheless and fairly straightforward read, with the author clearly laying out arguments, providing solid sourcing, and clearly stating their intent and bias at the books beginning. Well researched and written, this is a great book if one is looking to better understand Singapore's system of governance.
September 10, 2018
By closely examining five well-chosen case studies—the 1966 Vandalism Act, the 1974 Press Act, the 1986 Legal Profession (Amendment) Act, the 1991 Religious Harmony Act, and the 2009 Public Order Act—through the lens of critical discourse analysis, Jothie Rajah's Authoritarian Rule of Law: Legislation, Discourse and Legitimacy in Singapore shows how the Singapore state governs through the illiberal "rule by law" while claiming to do so through the liberal "rule of law." By legislating illiberal laws and dominating public discourse, the state has successfully silenced or co-opted, in turn, its early electoral opponents, the local press, the legal profession, the Catholic Church and other religious organizations, and local civil society--the major sources of non-state authority and mobilization.
How then, Rajah asks, does the Singapore state construct and maintain its legitimacy despite such illiberal moves? The answer, implicit throughout the book, is articulated clearly and powerfully in the last chapter. Besides delivering widely distributed material success to the populace, the Singapore state has relied on two main discursive strategies. First, "telling the history of the 'nation' in a manner that celebrates colonial rule..., and presenting the colonial legal system as an asset to the 'nation' dulls suspicion and scrutiny of colonial precedent." For an obvious instance, the state has extended colonial Emergency legality (detention without trial etc) into present-day non-Emergency Singapore. Less obviously, the state has subordinated and infantilized its citizenry just as once the British did. Rajah writes:
Seen in this light, the state's decision to celebrate the 200th anniversary of Stamford Raffles' 'founding' of Singapore next year is not surprising or backward-looking or arbitrary, but entirely consistent with its governing ideology and citizen-directed pedagogy.
The second discursive strategy that the state deploys to legitimize its illiberal rule is the national narrative of extreme vulnerability, first to the threats of Communism and communalism during the Cold War, then to the threat of religious intolerance in the 80s and 90s, and then to the threat of terrorism in the new century. The threats change in the state narrative but the nation's 'vulnerability' stays the same, justifying the legal exceptionalism to the rule of law that the state claims to abide by.
Rajah's argument gives me two ideas for counter-narratives, ideas that are not entirely new but brought into sharp focus by this fiercely intelligent book. First, to counter the neo-colonial narrative, we need to focus more sharply and unrelentingly on the injustices and harm of colonial rule in Singapore. Second, to turn the vulnerability narrative to a more progressive use, we need to tell the stories of the truly vulnerable segments of Singapore society, namely, the poor, the elderly, LGBT teens, single moms, and migrant workers.
How then, Rajah asks, does the Singapore state construct and maintain its legitimacy despite such illiberal moves? The answer, implicit throughout the book, is articulated clearly and powerfully in the last chapter. Besides delivering widely distributed material success to the populace, the Singapore state has relied on two main discursive strategies. First, "telling the history of the 'nation' in a manner that celebrates colonial rule..., and presenting the colonial legal system as an asset to the 'nation' dulls suspicion and scrutiny of colonial precedent." For an obvious instance, the state has extended colonial Emergency legality (detention without trial etc) into present-day non-Emergency Singapore. Less obviously, the state has subordinated and infantilized its citizenry just as once the British did. Rajah writes:
Instead of rejecting 'colonial', the nation-state adopts colonial precedents and elevates this adoption in a manner that masks the Othering subordination inherent to colonial legal ideologies. The state's discursive employment of 'English law' as a legitimising marker is rhetorically consistent with the state's claim that Singapore is a 'rule of law' Westminster-model parliamentary democracy. The neo-coloniality of continuties between colonial 'law' and 'national' law is masked through thus rhetoric, which is in turn consistent with the national narrative's celebration of colonial rule as the source of modernity, prosperity and the plural population.
Seen in this light, the state's decision to celebrate the 200th anniversary of Stamford Raffles' 'founding' of Singapore next year is not surprising or backward-looking or arbitrary, but entirely consistent with its governing ideology and citizen-directed pedagogy.
The second discursive strategy that the state deploys to legitimize its illiberal rule is the national narrative of extreme vulnerability, first to the threats of Communism and communalism during the Cold War, then to the threat of religious intolerance in the 80s and 90s, and then to the threat of terrorism in the new century. The threats change in the state narrative but the nation's 'vulnerability' stays the same, justifying the legal exceptionalism to the rule of law that the state claims to abide by.
Rajah's argument gives me two ideas for counter-narratives, ideas that are not entirely new but brought into sharp focus by this fiercely intelligent book. First, to counter the neo-colonial narrative, we need to focus more sharply and unrelentingly on the injustices and harm of colonial rule in Singapore. Second, to turn the vulnerability narrative to a more progressive use, we need to tell the stories of the truly vulnerable segments of Singapore society, namely, the poor, the elderly, LGBT teens, single moms, and migrant workers.
April 13, 2022
在最近接连读的几本关于新加坡的书里，相对于英美的作者，这位身为法律人的新加坡作者的批评是最尖锐的。
整本书其实写得不太好。文笔干瘪，结构散乱，可读性比较低。但是它的核心观点还是有分量的。
作者认为新加坡的独立始于与英国殖民者的合作，因此它继承了后者家长式的“法制”（rule by law）模式，而没能产生一种大规模的、基于“法治”（rule of law）的个人权利意识。新加坡利用一种脆弱国家的话语体系，强调它的亚洲价值观，以法律为工具将社会稳定和集体利益置于个体之上，并在这个过程里强势打压个人权利，让异议者噤声。与此同时，新加坡政府又成功地通过物质繁荣和基于法制实质的法治表象维持住了自己的正当性。
尤其是从作者引用的那些政府听证会的记录中，我才清晰地认识到，新加坡与中国要比我想像中的还要相似。这种家长制的威权主义模式之所以能在新加坡获得更大程度的成功，它那前殖民地的历史羁绊只是相当次要的原因。因为最根本的因素仍然是它的规模。因此可以说，一方面，新加坡的成功模式是难以被借鉴和复制的；另一方面，它是否值得被借鉴和复制，也成了一个非常可疑的问题。
整本书其实写得不太好。文笔干瘪，结构散乱，可读性比较低。但是它的核心观点还是有分量的。
作者认为新加坡的独立始于与英国殖民者的合作，因此它继承了后者家长式的“法制”（rule by law）模式，而没能产生一种大规模的、基于“法治”（rule of law）的个人权利意识。新加坡利用一种脆弱国家的话语体系，强调它的亚洲价值观，以法律为工具将社会稳定和集体利益置于个体之上，并在这个过程里强势打压个人权利，让异议者噤声。与此同时，新加坡政府又成功地通过物质繁荣和基于法制实质的法治表象维持住了自己的正当性。
尤其是从作者引用的那些政府听证会的记录中，我才清晰地认识到，新加坡与中国要比我想像中的还要相似。这种家长制的威权主义模式之所以能在新加坡获得更大程度的成功，它那前殖民地的历史羁绊只是相当次要的原因。因为最根本的因素仍然是它的规模。因此可以说，一方面，新加坡的成功模式是难以被借鉴和复制的；另一方面，它是否值得被借鉴和复制，也成了一个非常可疑的问题。
April 9, 2018
A comprehensive view of Singapore's dominant party's method of controlling their nation. Welcome to the real Singapore.
February 28, 2020
A very well-researched and illuminating book. Not easy for the layman (like myself) to get through but so very important. This should be required reading for all lawyers in Singapore and anyone interested in Singapore politics.
December 23, 2018
10 stars. Great analysis but also several v pithy lines. None of the people who have cited her or this book did her justice or prepared me for how enjoyable or necessary this was
October 12, 2019
This is a very nice read about the history of a few prominent laws of Singapore which restrict civil liberties/rights. The most attractive part of the book is that it does not just view these laws from the superficial perspective that the government wants to stay in power; instead, it connects them with the contemporary geographical politics and the issues of national identity and national security. In summary, the PAP came to power because the British wanted to purge the leftists, and so it had to stay on the same anti-communist side with the British and Americans. The vandalism law was intended to suppress communism propaganda (posters, etc.) and the press law to suppress a pro-China newspaper. The PAP also lacked "the legitimacy of an ancestral connection to the land" so it had to forge the identity of a new nation and it did so via stressing the necessity of these laws for national security. After the cold war, the national identity is strengthened by contrasting the "western values" with the "Asian values". It seems to a non-Singaporean like me that PAP has become part of the national identity of Singapore, and thus a movement against PAP would probably destroy the nation, and all that PAP had done makes a lot of sense to me. Today, the Singapore government seems to be still working hard to strengthen the national identity and indeed, as a foreign resident in Singapore, I do feel that the social cohesion is a bit fragile. In such a case, the authoritarianism seems justified to a certain extent.
August 5, 2016
I'm only halfway through this book but I can safely say this is one of the most authoritative analysis (excuse the pun) of Singapore's history- that is sadly, represented by a field of adulterated history books that in all honesty, cannot claim to be nonpartisan in terms of historical perspective.
Unashamedly liberal in terms of political persuasion, the author uses a Foucault-ian ( Jessica Goh you will appreciate this) approach to analyse legal discourse, and yet has made it accessible to a general reader who has no legal background.
The points made are lucid and assembles nicely into a persuasive narrative that examines state discourse and the tools it employs to achieve its objectives with the author employing dramatic revelations and personification of the state that reads like a biography revealing how did the Singaporean state evolved to become what it is at the present.
The author's background makes this book all the more symbolic in terms of the offerings on Singapore's history and will definitely make u think about the "rule by law" and "rule of law" dichotomy the next time someone cites Singapore as an example of a rule-abiding country.
Unashamedly liberal in terms of political persuasion, the author uses a Foucault-ian ( Jessica Goh you will appreciate this) approach to analyse legal discourse, and yet has made it accessible to a general reader who has no legal background.
The points made are lucid and assembles nicely into a persuasive narrative that examines state discourse and the tools it employs to achieve its objectives with the author employing dramatic revelations and personification of the state that reads like a biography revealing how did the Singaporean state evolved to become what it is at the present.
The author's background makes this book all the more symbolic in terms of the offerings on Singapore's history and will definitely make u think about the "rule by law" and "rule of law" dichotomy the next time someone cites Singapore as an example of a rule-abiding country.
July 4, 2020
A fascinating look at rule of law (‘thin’ and formal in this context) in Singapore through case studies of a series of Acts of Parliament that limit substantive rights associated with a ‘thick’ account of the rule of law.
Displaying 1 - 10 of 10 reviews