Hong Kong is not Singapore, don’t believe the ‘authoritarian’ hyperbole

John Chan says the freedom of speech enjoyed by Hong Kong’s anti-establishment leaders gives the lie to their fearmongering over the city entering an era of authoritarian rule

Reading Time:2 minutes

Chris Patten and Derek Lam at a lunch hosted by the Democratic Foundation, in Central on September 20. Photo: Edward Wong

Published: 8:56am, 11 Oct 2017Updated: 7:31pm, 11 Oct 2017

Since the custodial sentences imposed on young protesters and three student leaders, young anti-establishment leaders have started to use the term “authoritarian rule” to describe Hong Kong’s governance. The last colonial governor, Chris Patten, visited the city recently to boost the morale of its frustrated young leaders. Demosisto leader Derek Lam Shun-hin, during his return visit to Patten at Oxford University, remarked that Hong Kong has become a “dictatorial city”.

By describing Hong Kong in this way, Lam showed himself to be either hopelessly naive, or shamelessly dishonest. The fact that he can make such a remark without fear of reprisal is in itself proof that he is wrong.

In response to the criticism that Hong Kong is under authoritarian rule, taking advantage of the legal system to suppress opponents, Chief Executive Carrie Lam Cheng Yuet-ngor said in late August that Hong Kong was not, and would not be, a city under what she called “authoritarian rule of law”.

Carrie Lam applauds Hong Kong’s rule of law

Authoritarian Rule of Law is also the title of a 2012 book by Jothie Rajah, a Singaporean lawyer-turned-academic. The book and other studies demonstrated Singapore’s case of authoritarian legalism, which has successfully made an exception to the general assumption that authoritarianism and rule of law are mutually incompatible. Singapore’s adherence to the rule of law and observance of legal procedures have created an open and fair legal environment, attracting foreign investment and fostering economic development; yet, internally, the rule of law and legal procedures have been used as tools to suppress dissent and curtail freedom and rights.

The 1988 case of Chng Suan Tze versus the Minister for Home Affairs clearly demonstrated this authoritarian rule of law at work. Chng and three other dissidents were arrested and detained without trial under the Internal Security Act (ISA), a draconian colonial-era law that had been applied to authorise a 23-year detention without trial of an alleged communist insurgent.

Singapore’s longest-held political prisoner Chia Thye Poh nominated for Peace Prize

Chng sought a court review of the constitutionality of the arrests. Both the lower court and the Court of Appeal ruled in his favour. The court held that the ISA “giving the executive arbitrary powers of detention” would be “unconstitutional and void”.