Constitutional  law is more important than ever for the continuing development of Singapore’s legal system - that is, if Assistant Professor(As/P.) Arun Thiruvengadam and other crucial legal actors are right.

In a recent interview on 16 July, 2008  at the National University of Singapore (NUS) Faculty of Law Bukit Timah Campus with the Singapore Law Review, As/P Thiruvengadam cited the current president of the Law Society, Michael Hwang’s actions in March this year as an example.

Mr. Hwang had reiterated the lament of his predecessor, Philip Jeyaretnam, that traditions of constitutional law and advocacy have remained underdeveloped in Singapore.  He then persuaded council members of the Law Society to set up a committee to study human rights in order to “promote greater awareness of public and international law.”

The Committee which was formed as a result now consists of leading members of the bar in Singapore, like Dr Thio Su Mien, former dean of NUS Faculty of Law and Senior Counsels Sundresh Menon and Cavinder Bull.

This increasing emphasis on Constitutional Law  appears to be finding support among judges in Singapore as well.

In XP v. PP, [2008] SGHC 107, Judge of Appeal Justice V K Rajah drew a connection between the disciplines of criminal and constitutional law by emphasising that “it is the constitutional role of the judges to carefully and dispassionately evaluate the deficiencies of the Prosecution’s and/or the Defence’s case theory on the sole basis of legal proof and not mere suspicion or intuition.”

This, according to As/P Thiruvengadam, is significant because it marks a departure from earlier times when constitutional law in Singapore was treated as an autonomous area dealing only with issues such as politics, and was to be kept isolated from other branches of law.

In his view, the recent trend in Singapore is to be welcomed, because it will enable the maturation of the legal system of Singapore as a whole.

“Other areas of law, say Contract Law, are relatively more straight forward as people would respect the basic tenets of the law for reasons of finality and efficiency,” he said.

In constitutional law, however, these imperatives do not necessarily lead to easy acceptance of efficient but unjust results. In order to find broader support and legitimacy, solutions to constitutional disputes cannot simply be forced upon people in the name of efficiency or commercial soundness.

Such solutions must be in tune with deeper societal values, and must also respect the legitimate interests of the affected individuals in a reasonable, just and sensitive manner. Here, more so than in other areas of law, knowledge of the ‘black-letter’ law is insufficient, and a far greater appreciation and understanding of local socio-political and cultural factors is required.

The challenges of constitutional law are great, and  discrimination in the law, As/P Thiruvengadam believes,  serves as a good example to highlight these very challenges.

To illustrate the complexities involved, As/P Thiruvengadam raised the simple example of the thin line between meritocracy and class-based discrimination in Singapore.

“How do we know that a student who secures good grades does so because of her intrinsic ‘merit’ or because she is fortunate to come from a privileged background that allows her to take advantage of attributes - such as private tuition classes or greater ease with the English language -  that come with an upper class background?” he asked.

“When and to what extent should we take such backgrounds into account to prevent us from crossing that line?”

What would you say to our finalists coming down to present their papers at the Symposium?

“First, I would congratulate them for having been shortlisted.  Given the competition involved, this by itself is quite an achievement.  Having closely studied the intricacies of discrimination law in their own jurisdiction, I would encourage them to use this opportunity to look at the laws in other jurisdictions, and to examine how and why they differ from the laws in their home countries. This will demonstrate, in a very practical way, the usefulness of looking at others.  At the same time, having to defend your own legal system’s position to others will allow them to see how one is viewed by others.  The metaphor of a legal ‘mirror’ comes to mind.”

As/P Thiruvengadam has taught Public Law the NUS Faculty of Law for three years.  In August 2008, he shifts his focus, and will be teaching an elective course on comparative constitutional law.

Lynette is a second year law student and the Deputy Chief Editor of the Singapore Law Review.