"Exceptionalism" is to Ignore, Rebut or Engage?

Chua Mui Hoong, Senior Writer of Straits Times wrote this in "In defence of Singapore exceptionalism" on Friday, 6 Nov 2009.

"THERE are three ways to respond to critics: ignore them, rebut them or engage them.

For a long time, the Singapore Government's preferred response to criticisms levelled at the Republic's civil-political milieu has been to ignore them. Some ministers with a more combative nature - notably Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew - have chosen to rebut them robustly. Few have done the critics the honour of actually looking at their views and engaging them publicly.

Law Minister and Second Home Affairs Minister K. Shanmugam did so, as did Chief Justice Chan Sek Keong, during the recent meeting of the New York State Bar Association (NYSBA) International Section in Singapore."

Law is law and we should respect the law of the land.

I have always respected Singapore Law until I read of how the Attorney General of Singapore in 1997, Chan Sek Keong wrote a letter to the then Law Minister of how law can be so cleverly interpreted. The issue was The Workers Party had complained to the police that Goh Chok Tong, Lee Hsien Loong and Tony Tan had been inside a Cheng San GRC polling station on Polling Day. [Link] After reading this story way back then, I have come to conclude that we have laws in Singapore that can be quite weird. It depends on who is interpreting it.

I wonder why Shanmugum, the current Law Mintster did not do the honour of engaging the IBA on this [Link] - International Bar Association Human Rights Report July 2008 on Singapore. To engage Reporters Sans Frontiers (which ranked Singapore's press freedom at 133) but to ignore IBA is "exceptional" indeed.

Ignore, rebut or engage? What the difference?

In trying to make Singapore 'unique' we now have the new term, 'exceptional'!

What is "Exceptionalism"?

• When Chan Sek Keong wrote in 1997, "There is a consistency in the rationales of the regulatory schemes governing activities inside and those outside polling stations on election day. Waiting outside a polling station is made an offence because it gives rise to opportunities to influence or intimidate voters: see paragraph 99 of the Elias Report. Hence, the Act has provided a safety zone which stretches outwards for 200 metres from the polling station. In contrast, the possibility of a person inside a polling station influencing or intimidating voters in the presence of the presiding officer and his officials, the polling agents etc was considered so remote that it was discounted by the Act." That's "Exceptionalism". I think a person may not be intimidating but to have the current SM, PM and former DPM in the same room where you put your cross on a voting slip can be quite "exceptional"!
  

• When MM said that the 'National Pledge' is just a high falutin' 'Aspiration', that's "Exceptionalism"!

• When Shanmugum said Singapore is not a Country but a mere City in defending government's restriction on press and other freedom, that's "Exceptionalism"!

Rule of law?
Rule by law?
Ruler's law? or
Lawyers rule?

In SinCity, who knows?

feedmetothefish