Due process is critically important, for without it, we can never be confident that the conclusion we come to is as correct as we can make it. It's not that Singaporeans aren't aware of this principle. For example, in the science lab, teachers stress the importance of adhering to correct experimental procedure and to control for ambient conditions. In social research, we are alert to issues of sampling, interview methods, leading questions, and the need for controls. At our workplace, we'd get very upset if a colleague made unfounded accusations against us and we're not given a fair hearing by our bosses, or even told who made those accusations. All these are due process issues.

But when it comes to guilt and innocence, we quickly become a primitive tribe, eager to jump to conclusions, looking forward to a good hanging. If he has been arrested, he must be guilty, we think. What's the point of adhering to due process and according him fair rights?

What's just as bad: Singaporeans are not good at making the distinction between guilt and fair sentencing either, as comments to recent articles in Yawning Bread have demonstrated. We seem not to care whether the sentence is excessive.

Let me speculate: The difference between how we are discerning when it comes to inanimate facts, and how we don't care when it comes to police behaviour, can, in my opinion, be traced to the police being part of the government. Basically, Singaporeans have a rather primitive relationship with our government -- a kind of patron-client relationship.

In this kind of relationship, the idea of equality and democratic oversight is poorly developed. The ordinary people see the "lords of the manor" as a class above them, not quite subject to the same rules of behaviour as we expect for us commoners. In particular, the lords have two privileges, both of which are seen as part of the natural order: reaping wealth, and getting away with abuses. In return for those privileges, the lords are expected to provide security and shower the little people with gifts.

It's kind of like the role of the mafia godfather played by the late actor Marlon Brando. The immigrant Italian community looked to him for help and favours, even as his organisation ran rackets and occasionally resorted to violence, not only against other gangs, but equally, against anyone who was disloyal to the boss, a kind of summary justice.

Patron-client relationships can be seen in many less developed societies on all continents, but in Singapore's case, it is probably a direct cultural descendant of the Confucian idea of a benevolent sovereign. Traditional Malay society also has these features.

The occasional bullying or predatory act of the lord is tolerated as part of the social bargain. For example, he may have the right of first refusal to the virgins coming of age in any year. It is terrible for the selected girls, but the society as a whole turns a blind eye. The lord may severely abuse someone who crosses his path, but again, the society as a whole turns a blind eye. It's a small price to pay, in their calculation, for continuing to receive the beneficence of the lord.

I think it is a good question to ask whether this attitude towards power explains our lack of concern about police behaviour.

The rebuttal by the government -- that having a lawyer present would "interfere" with investigations -- is also interesting in another way. Here again is an example of the efficiency rubric at work. By this I mean the tendency to use efficiency to justify the sacrifice of civil rights. In this excuse is implied that if lawyers are allowed to be present, police work will be shackled, and the public will not enjoy the benefits of law and order. Oh no! That will not do. Throwing a few criminals (of course we are sure they guilty as charged, right?) into the dungeon is a small price to pay for continuing to sleep peacefully at night, courtesy of the big chief.

It also jives with the fear of chaos that has been instilled among Singaporeans. Recall how, everytime anyone calls for freedom of speech, the government quickly raises the spectre of racial and religious riots, or how everytime anyone speaks of a more level playing field for opposition politicians, a fear of economic cost is hoisted. Now, if we start talking about oversight of the police and more checks and balances, the implied threat is that of criminals running loose.

Sometimes, the saddest thing about Singapore is not that we have an authoritarian government, but that the people think it's the best thing that's ever happened to them.

© Yawning Bread