The Straits Times, 28 Apr 2017
Law and Home Affairs Minister K. Shanmugam yesterday rebuked academic Donald Low for misrepresenting his comments about considering public opinion when deciding on criminal sentences.
Mr Low, an associate professor at the National University of Singapore's Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy, had written a Facebook post on Monday in response to an interview Mr Shanmugam gave to Mediacorp freesheet TODAY.
In the TODAY article, Mr Shanmugam had said criminal penalties should reflect public opinion, but that this does not equate to bowing to public pressure.
Mr Low then wrote: "No la, how can this be right?... We want our elected representatives to make laws impersonally and dispassionately, after proper deliberation and debate... Making laws on the basis of public opinion is populism by another name.
"If criminal punishments are to reflect only public opinion, why bother having judges do sentencing? Just run an opinion poll each time someone has been convicted."
In a Facebook post yesterday, Mr Shanmugam said some have assumed that he was suggesting sentences in individual cases should be dictated by public opinion.
He then took aim at Mr Low's comments, which "have seriously misconstrued what I actually said".
Mr Low, an associate professor at the National University of Singapore's Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy, had written a Facebook post on Monday in response to an interview Mr Shanmugam gave to Mediacorp freesheet TODAY.
In the TODAY article, Mr Shanmugam had said criminal penalties should reflect public opinion, but that this does not equate to bowing to public pressure.
Mr Low then wrote: "No la, how can this be right?... We want our elected representatives to make laws impersonally and dispassionately, after proper deliberation and debate... Making laws on the basis of public opinion is populism by another name.
"If criminal punishments are to reflect only public opinion, why bother having judges do sentencing? Just run an opinion poll each time someone has been convicted."
In a Facebook post yesterday, Mr Shanmugam said some have assumed that he was suggesting sentences in individual cases should be dictated by public opinion.
He then took aim at Mr Low's comments, which "have seriously misconstrued what I actually said".
First, the minister said his remarks "had nothing to do with how individual cases should be decided and what sentences should be meted out by judges".
Sentencing has always been the exclusive province of the courts and judges - who decide based on the prescribed laws, the facts and precedents, he said.
Rather, Mr Shanmugam said his remarks covered factors that the Government should take into account when deciding what conduct should be criminalised, and the appropriate range of penalties that should be meted out for different categories of offences.
Second, the minister said he had earlier made clear that public opinion, while relevant, cannot be the sole or decisive factor in proposing legislation.
Mr Shanmugam added that "it is surprising that some like Donald misunderstood what I meant", as the TODAY article had clearly set out the considerations that he said the Government should consider in deciding on legislation.
"Government should consider what is right, what is fair, and it should also take into account the weight of public opinion," he said.
For instance, if an overwhelming majority of the public does not consider some conduct to be criminal, that sentiment is relevant when deciding whether to criminalise such actions, Mr Shanmugam added.
It would be wrong for the Government to simply follow public opinion in all situations, as it can sometimes be inaccurate due to a lack of understanding of the facts, he said.
However, public opinion is still relevant, the minister added.
"If some law completely lacks public support, and the Government is not able to persuade the public on that law, then that particular law, over time, could become difficult to enforce," he noted.
Mr Shanmugam said such considerations have long been the basis on which laws are passed in many countries, including Singapore, and "are not some new-fangled theory".
He added that academics such as Mr Low have every right to make criticisms, especially on issues of public importance.
"But to be meaningful, and sensible, it will be first useful to read and understand what has been said, before jumping in to criticise," Mr Shanmugam said.
"Otherwise the commentator does no credit to himself or his institution. Particularly an institution which carries Mr Lee Kuan Yew's name," the minister added.
It would be wrong for the Government to simply follow public opinion in all situations, as it can sometimes be inaccurate due to a lack of understanding of the facts, he said.
However, public opinion is still relevant, the minister added.
"If some law completely lacks public support, and the Government is not able to persuade the public on that law, then that particular law, over time, could become difficult to enforce," he noted.
Mr Shanmugam said such considerations have long been the basis on which laws are passed in many countries, including Singapore, and "are not some new-fangled theory".
He added that academics such as Mr Low have every right to make criticisms, especially on issues of public importance.
"But to be meaningful, and sensible, it will be first useful to read and understand what has been said, before jumping in to criticise," Mr Shanmugam said.
"Otherwise the commentator does no credit to himself or his institution. Particularly an institution which carries Mr Lee Kuan Yew's name," the minister added.
* Donald Low sorry for remarks on Shanmugam interview
The Straits Times, 29 Apr 2017
Academic Donald Low has apologised to Law and Home Affairs Minister K. Shanmugam for his comments on an interview that the minister gave Mediacorp freesheet TODAY.
Mr Shanmugam had written a lengthy Facebook post on Thursday night rebuking Mr Low for misrepresenting his remarks about considering public opinion when deciding on criminal sentences.
In his own Facebook post yesterday, Mr Low shared the apology he sent to Mr Shanmugam via e-mail.
"I agree with your Facebook post and I apologise if I have caused you any trouble or offence," said the associate professor at the National University of Singapore's Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy.
In the TODAY article "Penalties for crime must reflect public opinion: Shanmugam", the minister had said criminal penalties should reflect public opinion, but added that public opinion cannot be the sole or decisive factor in proposing laws.
Mr Low then commented that "making laws on the basis of public opinion is populism by another name".
In his e-mail message, Mr Low clarified that his post was mainly a reaction to the headline of the article, which he felt did not represent Mr Shanmugam's position accurately.
"I had read the piece in full, but didn't give your comments sufficient attention in my post. I apologise for that," Mr Low wrote.
He added that he meant to point out that public opinion, even taken as a factor in criminal punishment, is "highly contingent, often irrational and subject to sudden changes".
Mr Low said his post was not directed at Mr Shanmugam or the minister's comments in the article. Rather, it was his take on what was wrong with a criminal justice system based on public opinion.
"But I accept that my post, in the context of the TODAY article carrying your comments, might be viewed as a criticism of you or your comments. That wasn't my intention at all," Mr Low added.
Penalties for crime must reflect public opinion: Shanmugam
The law will lose credibility otherwise, but it does not mean govt is bowing to public pressure
By Kelly Ng, TODAY, 24 Apr 2017
How society feels about the punishment meted out in criminal cases has to be something the Government must pay heed to, but this does not equate to bowing to public pressure, said Law Minister K Shanmugam.
This is because, if penalties do not reflect the weight of public opinion and people do not find them fair, the law would lose its credibility and would not be enforceable, he added.
“You enhance the penalty (for a certain law) to reflect what people feel is the right penalty, what conduct should be more severely punished — that is not bowing down; that is understanding where the weight of public opinion is,” said Mr Shanmugam in an exclusive interview with TODAY last week.
He added: “(Paying attention to public expression) is important because these people represent the ground feelings ... Penalties and criminal laws can only be enforced if people believe that they are fair and that certain conduct ought to be made criminal ... Otherwise they lose credibility.”
Reviews of laws for a string of offences have been announced by Mr Shanmugam, who is also Minister for Home Affairs, in recent days, including some in high-profile cases that attracted close public attention, and even outcry.
For instance, he directed his ministries to relook the sentences for sex offenders such as Joshua Robinson, a mixed martial arts instructor who had sex with two 15-year-olds and showed an obscene film to a six-year-old.
The American was sentenced to four years’ jail, which was deemed too light by some — an online petition calling for a harsher sentence has since garnered almost 30,000 signatories.
In a Parliament sitting earlier this month, Mr Shanmugam said reviews of the laws relating to the abuse of foreign domestic workers was also being conducted.
While he did not cite any specific cases, news of the review came in the wake of a Singaporean couple who starved their maid, causing her weight to plunge from 49kg to 29.5kg in 15 months. The man was sentenced to three weeks’ jail and a S$10,000 fine while his wife was sentenced to three months’ jail.
Public outcry over penalties in individual cases do not necessarily lead to a review of the laws, Mr Shanmugam stressed, noting that reviews have been announced by ministries for laws in cases that did not attract any public attention.
Drugs, drink-driving, and false and malicious allegations against public officers are some offences that have been flagged recently for review.
He said: “Even without public expression, when I see a sentence (and if) I see these needs to be looked at ... (where) I feel need a review, I announce them. And that is our job.”
But, he noted: “When there is a reaction to a sentence by the public, as in the Joshua Robinson case, then I think it is important for us as policymakers to sit down and understand why people are upset ... It is important because these people represent the ground feelings — they are mothers, they are sisters, they are people who want their children to be safe.”
He added: “But it doesn’t mean automatically you agree with it. You must assess it, whether it is also fair. So, there are two parts to it — one, whether it is fair; two, what does the public believe is right.”
In a similar way to how he had urged the public against personal attacks on the High Court judges who recently reduced the sentences of six City Harvest Church leaders for misappropriating church funds, Mr Shanmugam said the announcement of reviews for laws should not be taken as an indictment of the work of the Attorney-General’s Chambers (AGC).
The Public Prosecutor can only apply the law of the day and it is up to the Government to decide what the laws and penalties ought to be, he noted.
“It is the task of the Government to decide what is the appropriate legislative provision. And that is the mixture of ... what is fair, what is right and also where is the weight of public opinion.”
A deputy public prosecutor, who declined to be named, had reservations about reviews being announced soon after a case concludes in court.
“When the Government says these things, it ties our hands,” he said.
A former prosecutor, who wanted to remain anonymous, said that while public perception is a “relevant” concern, it “must not be the overriding consideration”.
“Otherwise we may run the risk of undermining the rule of law with mob justice ... In my view, it would help if the AGC engages the public more actively and explains its decisions,” said the lawyer, who is now practising in a private firm.
“This way, concerns of bowing to political pressure of public opinion would be allayed to some degree.”
Lawyers TODAY interviewed agreed there was nothing wrong with public uproar leading to legislative reviews.
Mr Sunil Sudheesan, president of the Association of Criminal Lawyers of Singapore, said: “The Government ultimately is a servant of the people. And if people are legitimately outraged (over a particular court sentence), then it should be of concern to the Government.”
He added that the Ministry of Law reviews a whole host of laws, noting “it just happens there has been a number of high profile cases lately”.
Legislative reviews are also a “product” of a more vocal and involved citizenry, said Mr Sudheesan. “I hope and trust that the engagement between the authorities and the public carries on for a long time ... The public should continue to speak up.”
The Straits Times, 29 Apr 2017
Mr Shanmugam had written a lengthy Facebook post on Thursday night rebuking Mr Low for misrepresenting his remarks about considering public opinion when deciding on criminal sentences.
In his own Facebook post yesterday, Mr Low shared the apology he sent to Mr Shanmugam via e-mail.
"I agree with your Facebook post and I apologise if I have caused you any trouble or offence," said the associate professor at the National University of Singapore's Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy.
In the TODAY article "Penalties for crime must reflect public opinion: Shanmugam", the minister had said criminal penalties should reflect public opinion, but added that public opinion cannot be the sole or decisive factor in proposing laws.
Mr Low then commented that "making laws on the basis of public opinion is populism by another name".
In his e-mail message, Mr Low clarified that his post was mainly a reaction to the headline of the article, which he felt did not represent Mr Shanmugam's position accurately.
"I had read the piece in full, but didn't give your comments sufficient attention in my post. I apologise for that," Mr Low wrote.
He added that he meant to point out that public opinion, even taken as a factor in criminal punishment, is "highly contingent, often irrational and subject to sudden changes".
Mr Low said his post was not directed at Mr Shanmugam or the minister's comments in the article. Rather, it was his take on what was wrong with a criminal justice system based on public opinion.
"But I accept that my post, in the context of the TODAY article carrying your comments, might be viewed as a criticism of you or your comments. That wasn't my intention at all," Mr Low added.
** Donald Low makes second apology to Shanmugam
He says he misrepresented minister's views in online post, calls his first apology insincere
The Straits Times, 11 May 2017
Academic Donald Low has made a second apology to Law and Home Affairs Minister K. Shanmugam, over his comments on an interview that the minister gave Mediacorp freesheet Today.
In a Facebook post on Tuesday night, Mr Low said his first apology to Mr Shanmugam "was insincere, and self-exculpatory", and he had written to the minister again to "apologise unreservedly".
He also put up his apology in full.
He wrote: "On deeper reflection, I realise my first apology was insincere. I am therefore writing now to apologise unreservedly.
"I had misrepresented your views in the Today article, and had presented them in a careless, thoughtless and flippant way. To make things worse, my apology was self-exculpatory.
"I accept that my criticism of your views was untruthful, unfair and unsubstantiated. I have let the LKY School down. But above all I'm sorry for my original post; it was impulsive and reckless."
Mr Low, who is an associate professor at the National University of Singapore's Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy, had first said sorry to Mr Shanmugam on April 28 for his remarks on the article that quoted the minister.
In the Today article headlined "Penalties for crime must reflect public opinion: Shanmugam", published on April 24, Mr Shanmugam had said that criminal penalties should reflect public opinion, but added that public opinion cannot be the sole or decisive factor in proposing laws.
Commenting on this in a Facebook post, Mr Low said "making laws on the basis of public opinion is populism by another name".
This drew a sharp rebuke from Mr Shanmugam, who said in a lengthy Facebook post on April 27 that Mr Low had misrepresented his remarks about considering public opinion when deciding on criminal sentences.
He said Mr Low's comments had "seriously misconstrued" what he actually said, adding that his remarks had nothing to do with how individual cases should be decided.
Rather, he was referring to factors that the Government should take into account when deciding what conduct should be criminalised, and the appropriate range of penalties that should be meted out for different categories of offences.
After this, Mr Low sent an apology to Mr Shanmugam via e-mail.
In this first apology, he said his comments were mainly a reaction to the headline of the article, which he felt did not represent Mr Shanmugam's position accurately.
Mr Low also said his post was not directed at Mr Shanmugam or the minister's comments in the article. Rather, it was his take on what was wrong with a criminal justice system based on public opinion.
Apologising again on Tuesday, he said he had spent several days reflecting on his conduct "in putting up a commentary that was neither accurate nor honest" and misstating Mr Shanmugam's view and then criticising him "in a sneering tone". He described his first apology as "a non-apology".
"I tried to claim I was commenting on the headline and not his remarks, when my comments clearly showed otherwise," he said.
He also said he had deleted some of his original comments to bolster his claim that he was referring only to the headline.
He says he misrepresented minister's views in online post, calls his first apology insincere
The Straits Times, 11 May 2017
In a Facebook post on Tuesday night, Mr Low said his first apology to Mr Shanmugam "was insincere, and self-exculpatory", and he had written to the minister again to "apologise unreservedly".
He also put up his apology in full.
He wrote: "On deeper reflection, I realise my first apology was insincere. I am therefore writing now to apologise unreservedly.
"I had misrepresented your views in the Today article, and had presented them in a careless, thoughtless and flippant way. To make things worse, my apology was self-exculpatory.
"I accept that my criticism of your views was untruthful, unfair and unsubstantiated. I have let the LKY School down. But above all I'm sorry for my original post; it was impulsive and reckless."
Mr Low, who is an associate professor at the National University of Singapore's Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy, had first said sorry to Mr Shanmugam on April 28 for his remarks on the article that quoted the minister.
In the Today article headlined "Penalties for crime must reflect public opinion: Shanmugam", published on April 24, Mr Shanmugam had said that criminal penalties should reflect public opinion, but added that public opinion cannot be the sole or decisive factor in proposing laws.
Commenting on this in a Facebook post, Mr Low said "making laws on the basis of public opinion is populism by another name".
This drew a sharp rebuke from Mr Shanmugam, who said in a lengthy Facebook post on April 27 that Mr Low had misrepresented his remarks about considering public opinion when deciding on criminal sentences.
He said Mr Low's comments had "seriously misconstrued" what he actually said, adding that his remarks had nothing to do with how individual cases should be decided.
Rather, he was referring to factors that the Government should take into account when deciding what conduct should be criminalised, and the appropriate range of penalties that should be meted out for different categories of offences.
After this, Mr Low sent an apology to Mr Shanmugam via e-mail.
In this first apology, he said his comments were mainly a reaction to the headline of the article, which he felt did not represent Mr Shanmugam's position accurately.
Mr Low also said his post was not directed at Mr Shanmugam or the minister's comments in the article. Rather, it was his take on what was wrong with a criminal justice system based on public opinion.
Apologising again on Tuesday, he said he had spent several days reflecting on his conduct "in putting up a commentary that was neither accurate nor honest" and misstating Mr Shanmugam's view and then criticising him "in a sneering tone". He described his first apology as "a non-apology".
"I tried to claim I was commenting on the headline and not his remarks, when my comments clearly showed otherwise," he said.
He also said he had deleted some of his original comments to bolster his claim that he was referring only to the headline.
Mr Low said he felt he should set the record straight as Mr Shanmugam had helped him when he was out of a job in 2012.
"He then put in a good word for me with (Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy), and gave me a recommendation.
"I decided that I should come clean about someone who had in fact helped me, and I should set out the facts in public," he said.
"I decided that I should come clean about someone who had in fact helped me, and I should set out the facts in public," he said.
Penalties for crime must reflect public opinion: Shanmugam
The law will lose credibility otherwise, but it does not mean govt is bowing to public pressure
By Kelly Ng, TODAY, 24 Apr 2017
How society feels about the punishment meted out in criminal cases has to be something the Government must pay heed to, but this does not equate to bowing to public pressure, said Law Minister K Shanmugam.
This is because, if penalties do not reflect the weight of public opinion and people do not find them fair, the law would lose its credibility and would not be enforceable, he added.
“You enhance the penalty (for a certain law) to reflect what people feel is the right penalty, what conduct should be more severely punished — that is not bowing down; that is understanding where the weight of public opinion is,” said Mr Shanmugam in an exclusive interview with TODAY last week.
He added: “(Paying attention to public expression) is important because these people represent the ground feelings ... Penalties and criminal laws can only be enforced if people believe that they are fair and that certain conduct ought to be made criminal ... Otherwise they lose credibility.”
Reviews of laws for a string of offences have been announced by Mr Shanmugam, who is also Minister for Home Affairs, in recent days, including some in high-profile cases that attracted close public attention, and even outcry.
For instance, he directed his ministries to relook the sentences for sex offenders such as Joshua Robinson, a mixed martial arts instructor who had sex with two 15-year-olds and showed an obscene film to a six-year-old.
The American was sentenced to four years’ jail, which was deemed too light by some — an online petition calling for a harsher sentence has since garnered almost 30,000 signatories.
In a Parliament sitting earlier this month, Mr Shanmugam said reviews of the laws relating to the abuse of foreign domestic workers was also being conducted.
While he did not cite any specific cases, news of the review came in the wake of a Singaporean couple who starved their maid, causing her weight to plunge from 49kg to 29.5kg in 15 months. The man was sentenced to three weeks’ jail and a S$10,000 fine while his wife was sentenced to three months’ jail.
Public outcry over penalties in individual cases do not necessarily lead to a review of the laws, Mr Shanmugam stressed, noting that reviews have been announced by ministries for laws in cases that did not attract any public attention.
Drugs, drink-driving, and false and malicious allegations against public officers are some offences that have been flagged recently for review.
He said: “Even without public expression, when I see a sentence (and if) I see these needs to be looked at ... (where) I feel need a review, I announce them. And that is our job.”
But, he noted: “When there is a reaction to a sentence by the public, as in the Joshua Robinson case, then I think it is important for us as policymakers to sit down and understand why people are upset ... It is important because these people represent the ground feelings — they are mothers, they are sisters, they are people who want their children to be safe.”
He added: “But it doesn’t mean automatically you agree with it. You must assess it, whether it is also fair. So, there are two parts to it — one, whether it is fair; two, what does the public believe is right.”
In a similar way to how he had urged the public against personal attacks on the High Court judges who recently reduced the sentences of six City Harvest Church leaders for misappropriating church funds, Mr Shanmugam said the announcement of reviews for laws should not be taken as an indictment of the work of the Attorney-General’s Chambers (AGC).
The Public Prosecutor can only apply the law of the day and it is up to the Government to decide what the laws and penalties ought to be, he noted.
“It is the task of the Government to decide what is the appropriate legislative provision. And that is the mixture of ... what is fair, what is right and also where is the weight of public opinion.”
A deputy public prosecutor, who declined to be named, had reservations about reviews being announced soon after a case concludes in court.
“When the Government says these things, it ties our hands,” he said.
A former prosecutor, who wanted to remain anonymous, said that while public perception is a “relevant” concern, it “must not be the overriding consideration”.
“Otherwise we may run the risk of undermining the rule of law with mob justice ... In my view, it would help if the AGC engages the public more actively and explains its decisions,” said the lawyer, who is now practising in a private firm.
“This way, concerns of bowing to political pressure of public opinion would be allayed to some degree.”
Lawyers TODAY interviewed agreed there was nothing wrong with public uproar leading to legislative reviews.
Mr Sunil Sudheesan, president of the Association of Criminal Lawyers of Singapore, said: “The Government ultimately is a servant of the people. And if people are legitimately outraged (over a particular court sentence), then it should be of concern to the Government.”
He added that the Ministry of Law reviews a whole host of laws, noting “it just happens there has been a number of high profile cases lately”.
Legislative reviews are also a “product” of a more vocal and involved citizenry, said Mr Sudheesan. “I hope and trust that the engagement between the authorities and the public carries on for a long time ... The public should continue to speak up.”
No comments:
Post a Comment