The Rule of Law and Society

Today's post will be a slightly shorter one since it's been a busy weekend (occupied with sleeping and eating).

I will answer 2 questions that I have been thinking of in recent times. I attribute this post to a friend who I have discussed this previously. The scope of this discussion is Law, Society, and Politics.

1) Why do different countries have different laws?

The constitution of each nation sets the fundamental principles in which how the nation is to be run, and consequently how laws are to be set.

Arguably, the constitution represents the people. The laws set under this constitution are based on the principles on how the nation is run. Laws are set to represent the people. In other words, lawmakers create laws to best represent the sentiments of people of a particular issue. It lays the groundwork for a nation of what is right and wrong, be it under civil, commercial, criminal, or any other types of law.

For example, in different interviews in 2015 and 2017, PM Lee has expressed that Singapore is "not ready" to accept the LGBT groups as a whole. He points out that until societal sentiments change, Singapore cannot abolish 377A of the penal code.

To the more liberal viewers of the interviews, it is understandably infuriating that in the face of acceptance of LGBT groups globally (in the Western countries), Singapore is choosing not to take the step forward. However, the fact that PM Lee has decided that Singapore is "not ready" clearly shows that there are still conservative groups of Singaporeans who are unwilling to accept LGBT groups. If PM Lee were to push for LGBT rights in Singapore, he will be pushing against the largely conservative society in Singapore, which is not a wise thing to do as a lawmaker, politically speaking.

Of course there may come a day where Singapore becomes more acceptive towards LGBT groups, and when that day comes it is up to the government to decide whether or not to amend the constitution, and to listen to the public opinions.

In conclusion, the laws of each country are set based on the beliefs and sentiments of the people. When public opinions change, laws change. This is why laws are quite volatile and need regular review.

However, things may not always be as simple. In an increasing globalized world, there is international pressure on countries who do not conform to their allies' laws and beliefs. The pressure usually comes from the Western world, who use (and abuse) the United Nations by threatening sanctions and having human rights groups (which originate from, guess where, the western world itself!) churn reports over the faults of each countries and screaming that they are "going against human rights". Lawmakers are then put in a spot sometimes, to respect the opinions of the people, or conform to international demands for trade and economic benefits.

2) Why do we need lawmakers?

Every 4-5 years, we go through a General Election to determine the members of parliament who will pass bills and determine how the country is run for the next parliament cycle. We elect people to enter parliament to debate and come out with the best solutions for the country. We also elect them so that they can represent our views in parliament, so that our views will be considered during debate and the passing of laws.

But why cant we decide for ourselves for what we want? Why must we elect people to represent us? The answer is harsh but simple.

We are often not qualified to make decisions for the country. Many of us lack expert knowledge in how a country should be run. 

Parts of the electorate are not or are poorly educated, they cant really run a country. 

A university graduate may specialize in, for example, engineering, and go on to be a CEO of a big shot company. Good for him, but does he know how healthcare or education works? I doubt so.

If we were to go to a referendum on every single law to be passed, it will be time and resource consuming to educate the electorate and ensure they make an informed decision. Even then, we may not get a sensible result. One good example is Brexit, where older people chose to leave the EU, and younger people chose to stay. The younger people will live longer to bear the outcomes of the vote, but the elderly and less educated narrowly won the vote to leave the EU. The younger generation will have to live with the decision made by people who wont be around long to see the consequences.

Granted, lawmakers are not 100% knowledgeable in everything. However, they represent political parties, whose knowledge when put together can encompass a wide range of government sectors. Furthermore, lawmakers will be able to have direct access to ministry documents and archives, something a layman cannot touch.

Therefore, what we as the electorate can do is to elect the person that best represents us into parliament, and trust that they will do a good job to represent our views. 

For if they do not, like Barisan Nasional, they have to pay the political price.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Review of Circles.Life (1 Month On)

Journey to the License: The End (Part 1)

On MUN and my High School Life