Introduction

Ever since Sir Stamford Raffles in 1819 alighted at the point on the Singapore River where his statue now gazes benevolently down on the backs of public buildings on the waterfront, Singapore has been a byword for firm government. In his brief sojourns in Singapore Raffles laid down many of the principles by which Singapore is now governed: an economically ambitious policy of free trade, in particular a free port;² the recruitment of Singapore's many ethnic communities behind Government policies; law and order; cleanliness; purposeful administration; centralization of political power. Raffles was motivated not only by utilitarianism, but also by humanitarianism. This latter aspect of his policy has also been fulfilled, though only partially. Raffles would no doubt be pleased with Singapore's prosperity and environment, the expansion and efficacy of its education, health care, public services and social institutions, and its prominence in international counsels. He would, I think, be disappointed that Singapore has not become the cultural focal point of maritime South East Asia,³ and that it has moved away from those principles of the enlightenment which inspired its creator.

I mention Raffles rather than Lee Kuan Yew in this introduction because it is easy to lose sight of the fact that Singapore's history, policy and legal system have been determined to a a large extent by geopolitics. It was chosen by Raffles because of its natural harbour, situated so as to serve India and Europe in the West, China in the East, and South East Asia all around it. It was from the beginning a commercial colony rather than a strategic necessity.

The Singapore of what we might call ``the Lee Kuan Yew era'' (1959 to the present)⁴ has been to a large extent preordained by an accident of history which resulted in the failure of its federation within Malaysia (1963-5). Much of what follows in this paper would have been true even if federation had succeeded, but the casting out of Singapore into the unpredictable political environment of 1960s South East Asia has resulted in the recognition of its leaders that Singapore is a potentially vulnerable city-state with a racial make-up which differs greatly from all the surrounding countries. Indeed it was this racial difference, as well as economic and political factors, which hastened Singapore's departure from Malaysia in 1965. The ideology put forward by Lee and other leaders since then has been that Singapore has only the intelligence and discipline of its workforce, and no hinterland of rice-padi and rich natural resources to fall back on, as Malaysia, China and Indonesia have. Its only route to survival, let alone economic propserity, has therefore been to take advantage of its position and infrastructure to provide goods and services to others, and to be a prime location for multi-national corporations. It is too small and vulnerable to withstand the shock-waves of a genuinely open society, and must maintain a rigid policy of social discipline and clearly defined, forcefully implemented, social objectives. This siege mentality is reinforced by, for example, the continuation of national service and reservist training, even though there is no military threat to Singapore. Attempts have also been made to enlist confucianism as a guiding philosophy, but this has had limited success.

The ideology of social discipline has profoundly affected the development of law in Singapore. Law has been seen primarily as an instrument of social engineering rather than as the expression of a particular balance of principles defined politically or culturally and regarded as the embodiment of justice. This is a proposition which would probably find few dissenters, but what I think is interesting is to speculate on the nature and extent of this analysis, and to see to what extent it represents a model for other societies to follow. Is law as social engineering in Singapore purely an outcome of its situation, or is it indeed a glimpse of the legal future of the 21st century, not just perhaps in Asia, but over the rest of the planet? To this question I will return.