This would make a good juris paper. Prof Koh and ex-CJ Chan were obviously speaking around two different conceptions of what "rule of law" and "rule by law" meant. Many ideas here that would be interesting to tease out. "Prof Koh cited some Singaporeans’ view of the ISA — which allows for detention without trial of individuals whose acts threaten national security — as example that Singapore had “rule by law, rather than rule of law”. Rejecting the contention, Mr Chan said that the standard definition of rule by law was that the government is subject to the law and accepts so. In that case, there would be rule of law, and the government is not “ruling by law”, he reiterated. “If the government does not rule by law, in the technical sense, what else can it rule by? That’s the only legitimate way by which it can rule,” he added."
Posted on: Tue, 17 Sep 2013 10:14:06 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015