Another example which has become famous is the so-called
`Graduate Mothers Scheme', under which university-educated
mothers were allowed certain privileges with regard to choice of
primary school for their children. The object of this scheme was
to encourage the reproduction of the elite, which was reckoned to
have fallen behind that of less qualified parents. This
represented the reversal of a family-planning policy which had
been rigorously enforced by a series of carrot-and-stick methods
over a period of several years, the object of which was to
prevent a population explosion in a small island with little land
to spare. The scheme failed, as very few mothers took up their
rights under the scheme.37 After a vigorous defence of its purpose, the
Government quietly dropped it the year following its
introduction. What is interesting is that, although there was no
constitutional challenge to the scheme, it was clearly perceived
by a significant number of people as an illegitimate use of
administrative power. Smartness, even in Singapore, has to extend
to smartness about public opinion, even though the Singapore
Government has proved adept at opinion-formation, and has
sometimes succeeded in altering what Governments elsewhere might
regard as an intractable environment of public opinion. The
extremes to which Government goes to alter the environmental of
opinion makes the nature of Singaporean laws highly instrumental
and regulatory, when taken in conjunction with administrative
measures and campaigns.38
Laws on voluntary sterilization and abortion have also played a
large part in the eugenics policy; these have had the effect of
encouraging and liberalizing access to sterilization and
abortion, thereby restricting population growth.
To conclude this section, administrative law in Singapore has
become law for administrators, not in my view a balance between
the rights of citizens and the practical attainment of collective
goals. There have been some very desirable consequences apart
from the erosion of basic liberties: the virtual abolition of
corruption, the provision of public housing and health care, and
the reduction in environmental pollution, for example. None of
these achievements can really be attributable to the denial of
fundamental rights as such. Labour laws, on the other hand, have
severely restricted rights of freedom of expression, assembly and
association.