Among a plethora of attributes, Singapore’s famed economic success is facilitated by public confidence in the judiciary and strict laws producing a deterrent effect. The article seeks to demonstrate how Singapore’s unique political and legal systems have delivered the foundation for its economic growth; how this unique system has served Singapore well for the past few decades; how public confidence in the judiciary is safeguarded through a multipronged strategy of various internal and external factors, including laws that deal with the offence of scandalizing the judiciary; and finally, how Singapore’s emphases on deterrence and law enforcement have led to an effective crime control model in Singapore.
Economic miracle
In Chief Justice Sundaresh Menon’s speech to the American Law Institute’s 93rd Annual Meeting on 16 May 2016, he recounted how as a student at Harvard in the early 1990s, there were many who had never heard of Singapore and how it had been described as an “improbable nation.”[1]
With a lack of natural resources to rely on, good leadership was a crucial aspect of Singapore’s success. Since its independence, founding Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew’s focus had been on political stability and economic development. Lee believed that talent development was a crucial and essential quality necessary for Singapore’s progress and continued success.[2]
Thus, in a book chronicling former Economic Development Board (EDB) Chairman Philip Yeo’s life, “Neither Civil Nor Servant,” Singapore’s economic success can be traced to the immeasurable work done by the EDB to attract multinational corporations to invest in Singapore in its formative years.[3] The usual articles praising Singapore would typically focus on its economic miracle. But economics aside, Singapore’s success can be attributed to several other factors, such as a well-qualified judiciary and a robust emphasis on deterrence for serious crimes.
For instance, according to former Deputy Secretary of the US Treasury Kenneth Dam’s interpretation of the rule of law through an economic lens of protecting property and enforcing contracts, the rule of law can only be maintained if there is a strong judiciary in place to resolve disputes between private parties.[4] Thus, Dam concludes that weak judiciaries have a deleterious effect on economic expansion.[5] Similarly, former Chief Justice of the Indiana Supreme Court Randall Shepard has argued that courts play an important role in facilitating economic growth because businesses react to contract and tort cases, and the decision taken by these businesses to invest or innovate is based on how they would be treated by the courts “when deals go south or products fail.”[6]
Unique political and legal system
Singapore political and legal systems are unique when compared to Western notions of democracy. It is this unique blend that has enabled Singapore to achieve considerable economic prosperity as compared to its geographical neighbors in the past five decades. As Thio explains, the Singapore system can be described as “politically inert and economically dynamic,” which has been described as the “Asian way.”[7] In such a system, economic development is prioritized over civil-political rights. Maintaining social order and discipline are viewed as the key catalyst to achieving economic development. If the rule of law (as a tool to maintain social control) and democracy were two competing objectives, then prioritizing the rule of law to maintain social control would be more important to attract foreign investments and sustain a free market.[8] This stability had been achieved through a strong legal system. Clear, practical laws and the effective observance and enforcement of these laws by the judiciary have provided the foundation for Singapore’s economic development, both internationally and domestically.
Furthermore, the judiciary, when combined with a strong executive, ensures that law and order are kept. In Singapore, the judicial power of the courts is derived from the Constitution and is thus co-equal with the legislative power and the executive power.[9] While the Singapore courts have the power to strike down unconstitutional laws, Menon J C (as he then was) in Lee Hsien Loong v Review Publishing Co Ltd [2007] 2 SLR(R) 453 has held that there are “clearly provinces of executive decision-making that are, and should be, immune from judicial review” where judicial review of executive decisions are concerned.[10]
Note also that the relationship between the judiciary and executive in Singapore is not adversarial in nature. Instead, the focus is on encouraging public administration which conforms to the rule of law. This is best illustrated through former Chief Justice Chan Sek Keong’s explicit endorsement of the green-light theory of public law which sees “public administration not as a necessary evil but with a positive attribute” focusing on “seek[ing] good government through the political process and public avenues rather than redress[ing] bad government through the courts.”[11]
Thus in Singapore, this illustrates how a harmonious relationship between the judiciary and the executive has resulted in an effective and strong public administration that conforms to the rule of law in order to support the key objective of promoting Singapore’s economic development.
Public confidence in the judiciary
The quality of the judiciary may be assessed through a number of factors, for example, educational background, experience, status as senior counsel, public perception, or even professional rankings.[12] This commentary is focused on a number of these factors.
Gibson has argued that courts depend on public confidence for the effectiveness and legitimacy of judicial authority.[13] To achieve this effectiveness, firstly, judges must be of high quality to instill public confidence and to command the respect from the various stakeholders (counsels, prosecutors, litigants, and the public at large). Secondly, even if there is a high-quality judiciary, the judiciary cannot function effectively to reach fair outcomes if it is subjected to repeated attacks beyond justified comment which may tarnish its image.
Decisions that judges make have a significant impact on many. A high-quality judiciary is crucial to political stability, as it helps to foster public trust in the system. One of the features of judicial decisions in the common law system is “stare decisis,” a principle that obliges subsequent courts to follow applicable precedents. This ensures that judicial decisions are consistent, certain, and principled, and not based on the whims of judges.[14] As law is one of the most intellectually demanding subjects in the world,[15] hearing a case, interpreting it and applying legal principles to achieve fair and consistent outcomes in a judgment requires a huge reserve of intellectual power.[16] The rule of law which underpins notions of justice demands that legal rules are consistently applied in every case, which is achieved by stare decisis.
In Singapore, the judiciary is made up of the brightest minds in the legal fraternity. For example, Quah has identified that one of the five secrets to Singapore’s success is nurturing the “best and brightest.” He argues that “education is the key to the long-term future of the population in Singapore which has no natural resources [… and that] Singapore has compensated for its absence of natural resources by investing heavily in education to enhance the skills of its population and to attract the ‘best and brightest’ Singaporeans to join and remain in the public bureaucracy and government by its policies of meritocracy […].”[17]
Constitutionally, a person is qualified for appointment as a Supreme Court judge if he or she has been a “qualified person” within the meaning of section 2 of the Legal Profession Act, or a member of the Judicial Service or Legal Service, for not less than 10 years.[18] Apart from satisfying the constitutional requirements, there are other criteria that can be reasonably inferred from the qualifications and experiences of the Supreme Court bench, such as a person’s experience and track record in private practice, government, or legal academia, educational qualifications, as well as alignment with the judicial culture in Singapore.
As of 1 May 2022, there were 29 judges and four senior judges (collectively, “judges”) on the Supreme Court bench in Singapore. Based solely on biographical information listed on the Singapore judiciary website,[19] more than 20 of these judges on the Supreme Court bench had undergraduate or postgraduate law degree qualifications from renowned overseas universities such as Harvard, Yale, Oxford, Cambridge, and University College London. Two new judicial commissioners that will be appointed in July and August 2022, respectively, also obtained postgraduate law degree qualifications from Harvard. More than 20 of these judges had law degrees from the National University of Singapore (NUS) or its predecessor. Recently, The Times Higher Education World University Ranking by subject had placed NUS eighth globally for the study of law.[20] Furthermore, a number of these judges had obtained first class honors qualifications or topped their respective law cohorts.
Apart from educational qualifications, a number of these judges were previously managing partners or senior partners of established law firms, or senior legal or judicial service officers. Many had obtained senior counsel status before their elevation to the Supreme Court bench. Others had considerable teaching and research experience, and an outstanding publication track record in legal academia.
Thus, it is a reasonable inference that the brightest minds in the legal fraternity, who possess deep domain expertise in various practice areas, serve in our judiciary. The track record, education qualifications and varied professional experiences of these judges, while not only the sole determinant of public confidence in the judiciary, do help to bolster the judiciary’s standing in terms of public perception. A comparison would be the UK, where the Sutton Trust’s Leading People 2016 report showed that 74% of the judiciary had Oxbridge qualifications.[21]
Perception
Apart from a high-quality judiciary which contribute to the public perception of the judiciary, there must be public confidence in the judicial decision-making process. In an oral answer provided by the Minister for Home Affairs and Law, K Shanmugam, to a parliamentary question from fellow Member of Parliament Christopher de Souza on 21 March 2018, Shanmugam shared survey results conducted by his ministry in late 2015 on how Singaporeans viewed the Singapore courts, noting that 92% said they had trust and confidence in the legal system and 96% agreed that Singapore was governed by the rule of law.[22] Shanmugam had also emphasized that Singapore’s approach was to appoint the best people from private and public sectors to the bench and key legal service appointments.[23]
As explained earlier, Singapore’s approach to governance has been described as the “Asian way.” There are instances when this does not sit well with a small minority or may attract criticisms from international participants. For example, in Oakwell Engineering Limited v Enernorth Industries Inc (2006), 81 O.R. (3d) 288, Enernorth, a Canadian company, had opposed enforcement of a foreign judgment obtained by Oakwell in the Singapore courts by alleging that the Singapore judicial system was corrupt and biased. However, the Ontario Court of Appeal held that “there was a lack of evidence of corruption or bias [within Singapore legal system] in private commercial cases and no cogent evidence of bias in this specific case.”[24] Furthermore, in comments made by the US Department of State in 2004, it was recognized that the Singapore judicial system “provides citizens with an efficient judicial process… [d]efendants enjoy a presumption of innocence and the right of appeal in most cases… [and] [t]here were no reports of political prisoners.”[25]
Furthermore, recent structural changes to the Singapore legal service which had led to a separation of the judicial and legal services would also possibly affect public perception in a positive manner. This model would facilitate greater specialization in the judicial and legal branches. Under such a model, the judicial service would be in a better position to nurture specialist judicial officers. This would enable judicial officers to acquire the skills and knowledge needed to operate in increasingly complex environments.[26] As Menon CJ has explained, judges today serve people that are “more sophisticated and knowledgeable and have higher expectations” and the legal issues that judges have to deal with “have become increasingly complex and frequently involve inter-disciplinary issues and trans-border transactions.”[27] It is anticipated that a dedicated judicial service would better cater to developing the skills of judges.
Shepard has identified that courts “[must] lay down the clearest rules possible and then follow them in a predictable way so that businesses can plan their affairs […], [and] must act quickly and diligently to resolve disputes.”[28] In this way, a dedicated judicial service would maintain the perception of the judiciary which would help to facilitate Singapore’s continued economic progress.
Scandalizing the judiciary
Public perception of the judiciary would also be affected if the judiciary is subject to repeated attacks. Hence, Singapore’s emphasis on protecting the judiciary from abuse and contempt is important, which is now enshrined in the Administration of Justice (Protection) Act 2016 (AJPA).[29] In the UK, the offence of scandalizing the judiciary had been abolished. One of the reasons cited by the UK Law Commission for the abolition of the offence of scandalizing the judiciary was that because scandalizing the courts was very common, the offence was of limited value in the UK.[30] Repeated attacks on the judiciary would undermine the trust and confidence in the judiciary which would fundamentally affect the standing of Singapore and the way Singapore functions.[31]
In Wham Kwok Han Jolovan v Attorney-General [2020] SGCA 16, which was the first case to be prosecuted under the AJPA, the Court of Appeal had set out the parameters for liability for scandalizing contempt under section 3(1)(a) of the AJPA. Earlier cases on contempt of court had involved journalists publishing in publications such as the Wall Street Journal,[32] authors publishing books that had cast aspersions on the operation of the judicial system[33] and social commentators publishing lengthy blog posts on cases before the court.[34]
The Court of Appeal’s decision dealt with the issue of “risk” under section 3(1)(a)(ii) of the AJPA.[35] The question of the sufficiency of “risk” generated significant debate when the AJPA was introduced in the Singapore Parliament in 2016, as it statutorily departs from the common law position that the threshold for scandalizing contempt had to pose a “real risk” that public confidence in the administration of justice would be undermined.[36] The Court of Appeal held that Parliament’s intention in replacing the common law “real risk” with the “risk” test was to introduce a test that could be applied more expediently and pragmatically, and that avoided hair-splitting or fine distinctions.[37] As long as a balanced view is taken responsibly and adopted without malicious intent, there is no legitimate reason for one to be worried about the AJPA.
Deterrence
There are a multitude of factors that could explain the low crime rate in Singapore, such as better policing and enforcement in Singapore. It could be also attributed to cultural factors; for instance, Nivette has argued that low crime rates in Asian countries could be linked to cultural factors.[38] It may also be argued that the strict laws in Singapore which produce a deterrent effect on crime is a contributing factor to the low crime rate in Singapore. For instance, Teo has argued that strict laws and punishment of drug abuse reflect the low tolerance of drug abuse in mainstream society, and this could possibly explain the lower prevalence of drug-related crime compared to Western countries.[39]
Detotto and Otranto have argued that crime has a significant impact on society which is similar to a form of “tax on the entire economy” by discouraging “domestic and foreign direct investments, [reducing] the competitiveness of firms, and [reallocating] resources, creating uncertainty and inefficiency.”[40] They argue that “crime imposes great costs to the public and private actors through stolen goods, lost lives, security spending, pain and suffering.”[41] Thus, Singapore has a reputation for strict laws and sentencing, which creates a deterrent effect as Reynolds has observed.[42] This deterrent effect consequently results in lower crime. Bun et al. has argued that strong deterrence, i.e., increasing the risk of apprehension and conviction is more influential in reducing crime than raising the expected severity of punishment.[43]
From a serious crimes perspective, in a written reply to a parliamentary question by Associate Professor Jamus Lim on 5 October 2020 on whether there has been any systematic study by the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) on the deterrent effect of a life sentence relative to the death penalty, Shanmugam had said that the MHA had commissioned a survey involving 2,000 residents in 2019 on attitudes towards capital punishment. Most respondents agreed or strongly agreed that the death penalty was more effective than life imprisonment as a deterrent against using firearms in Singapore (70.8%), committing murder (70.6%) and drug trafficking (68%).[44]
In another study conducted in 2018 which sampled non-Singaporeans who were likely to visit Singapore and hence might potentially encounter Singapore laws and penalties, the MHA had also found that 76% of respondents believed that the death penalty was more effective than life imprisonment in discouraging people from committing serious crimes in Singapore.[45]
In a more recent survey which was carried out by MHA in 2021 as to whether the mandatory death penalty was appropriate, 81% of Singapore residents said it was appropriate for intentional murder, 71% said it was appropriate for firearm offences, and 66% said it was appropriate for drug trafficking. More than 80% had also believed that the death penalty had deterred the commission of these offences in Singapore.[46] MHA had also carried out a separate study in 2021 on people in regions where most of Singapore’s arrested drug traffickers originated from in recent years. It was found that 82% of respondents believed that the death penalty made people not want to commit serious crimes in Singapore, and 83% of respondents believed that the death penalty made people not want to traffic substantial amounts of drugs into Singapore.[47]
Even for petty crimes, there are strict rules in Singapore. Spitting or smoking in public are prohibited. The very strict adherence to the rule of law has enabled Singapore to have a reputation as a conducive environment to conduct business.
Apart from strict laws which do produce a general deterrence effect, there is also a possibility that sentences may be enhanced in criminal appeals. In an article commemorating former Chief Justice Yong Pung How in January 2020, there was a recount of how Yong CJ had discouraged frivolous appeals by enhancing sentences.[48] Recently, in an egregious case of a man who had posed as an agent for wealthy “sugar daddies” and tricked 11 women into sex acts, Menon CJ more than doubled his jail term after his appeal for a shorter sentence was dismissed.[49]
Apart from general deterrence, there is public trust in the Singapore Police Force which has enabled it to carry out law enforcement effectively. Dam has argued that without effective enforcement, it would be difficult to promote the rule of law even if a country improves its substantive law.[50] For example, in the US, there have been some individuals who have been victims of systemic police brutality, e.g. Michael Brown, Eric Garner, Walter Scott and George Floyd.[51] Singapore has avoided this problem by its emphasis on community-oriented policing through the implementation of the neighborhood police post (NPP) system.[52] The NPP system works by integrating police posts with neighborhoods and distributing more police officers across residential estates, instead of concentrating them in large police stations. [53] In turn, police officers are able to conduct high visibility patrols, house visits to build rapport with residents and take part in community engagement. Police officers are perceived by the population as part of their community, and this has helped to increase confidence in the police and led to a positive impact on the image of the police.[54]
Strict laws and a strong emphasis on deterrence are key features of the Singapore legal system. According to the 2021 Safe Cities Index by Statista, Singapore was ranked the third safest city in the word, after Copenhagen and Toronto.[55] Singapore has achieved this by being able to rely on a high-quality judiciary which is trusted by its citizens to deliver principled and fair outcomes. This is supported by strict laws which serve as a strict deterrence to would-be offenders, allowing Singapore to be recognized as one of the safest cities in the world to support its economic growth.
Featured image from Wikimedia Commons.
[1] Sundaresh Menon, “Lecture – The Rule of Law: The Path to Exceptionalism,” Singapore Academy of Law Journal 28 (2016): 413-427, 413.
[2] See for example, Hong Liu and Huimei Zhang, “Chapter 8: Lee Kuan Yew’s Thoughts on Talent and Singapore’s Development Strategy,” in Lee Kuan Yew Through the Eyes of Chinese Scholars, eds. Chen-Ning Yan, Ying-Shih Yu and Gungwu Wang (World Scientific Book, 2017), https://www.worldscientific.com/doi/abs/10.1142/9789813202320_0008.
[3] Pei Shing Huei, Neither Civil Nor Servant: The Philip Yeo Story (Straits Times Press, 2016).
[4] Kenneth W Dam, “The Judiciary and Economic Development,” John M. Olin Program in Law and Economics Working Paper No. 287 (2006): 11, https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=892030.
[5] Kenneth W Dam, “The Judiciary and Economic Development,” John M. Olin Program in Law and Economics Working Paper No. 287 (2006): 11, https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=892030.
[6] Randall T Shepard, “The Judiciary’s Role in Economic Prosperity” (2011) 44 Indiana Law Review 987, 987.
[7] Thio Li-Ann, “Lex Rex or Rex Lex? Competing Conceptions of the Rule of Law in Singapore,” Pacific Basin Law Journal 20, no. 1 (2002): 1-76, https://escholarship.org/content/qt35h2k603/qt35h2k603_noSplash_e113b243428e364feb515b987049b0de.pdf?t=n4oxk5.
[8] Thio Li-Ann, “Lex Rex or Rex Lex? Competing Conceptions of the Rule of Law in Singapore,” Pacific Basin Law Journal 20, no. 1 (2002): 1-76, https://escholarship.org/content/qt35h2k603/qt35h2k603_noSplash_e113b243428e364feb515b987049b0de.pdf?t=n4oxk5.
[9] Mohammad Faizal bin Sabtu v Public Prosecutor [2012] 4 SLR 947 at [16].
[10] Lee Hsien Loong v Review Publishing Co Ltd and another and another suit [2007] 2 SLR(R) 453 at [95].
[11] Chan Sek Keong, “Judicial Review – From Angst to Empathy” (2010) 22 Singapore Academy of Law Journal 469 at 479-483.
[12] Simon Chesterman, “Do Better Lawyers Win More Often? Measures of Advocate Quality and Their Impact in Singapore’s Supreme Court,” NUS Law Working Paper 2020/010, April 2020, https://law.nus.edu.sg/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/010_2020_Simon.pdf.
[13] James L Gibson, “Public Images and Understandings of Courts” in Peter Cane and Herbert M Kritzer (eds), The Oxford Handbook of Empirical Legal Research (Oxford University Press, 2010) 836-844.
[14] Jack Knight and Lee Epstein, “The Norm of Stare Decisis,” American Journal of Political Science 40, no. 4 (1996): 1018–35, https://doi.org/10.2307/2111740.
[15] James B White, “The Study of Law as an Intellectual Activity,” Journal of Legal Education 32, no. 1 (1982): 1–10, http://www.jstor.org/stable/42898009.
[16] S. Sivakumar, “Judgment or Judicial Opinion: How to Read and Analyse,” Journal of the Indian Law Institute 58, no. 3 (2016): 273–312, http://www.jstor.org/stable/45163393.
[17] Jon ST Quah, “Why Singapore works: five secrets of Singapore’s success,” Public Administration and Policy 21, no. 1 (2018) 5-21, http://www.emeraldinsight.com/1727-2645.htm.
[18] Article 96 of the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore (2020 Rev Ed).
[19] “Role and Structure of the Supreme Court – Structure,” December 8, 2021, https://www.judiciary.gov.sg/who-we-are/role-structure-supreme-court/structure#judges-bench.
[20] “NUS law ranked 8th globally,” National University of Singapore, November 4, 2021, https://news.nus.edu.sg/nus-law-ranked-8th-globally/.
[21] Philip Kirby, “The Educational Backgrounds of the UK Professional Elite,” (2016), https://dera.ioe.ac.uk/30232/1/Leading-People_Feb16-1.pdf.
[22] “Oral Answer by Minister for Home Affairs and Minister for Law, Mr K Shanmugam, to Parliamentary Question on Attracting Legal Talent to the Singapore Judiciary,” March 21, 2018, https://www.mlaw.gov.sg/news/parliamentary-speeches/oral-response-by-minister-k-shanmugam-on-attracting-legal-talent-to-the-singapore-judiciary.
[23] “Oral Answer by Minister for Home Affairs and Minister for Law, Mr K Shanmugam, to Parliamentary Question on Attracting Legal Talent to the Singapore Judiciary,” March 21, 2018, https://www.mlaw.gov.sg/news/parliamentary-speeches/oral-response-by-minister-k-shanmugam-on-attracting-legal-talent-to-the-singapore-judiciary.
[24] Oakwell Engineering Limited v Enernorth Industries Inc (2006), 81 O.R. (3d) 288 at [23]-[24].
[25] “2004 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices – Singapore,” US Department of State, February 28, 2005, https://2009-2017.state.gov/j/drl/rls/hrrpt/2004/41659.htm.
[26] Selina Lum, “Parliament approves separation of judicial and legal services” The Straits Times, November 3, 2021, https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/politics/changes-to-law-passed-to-separate-judicial-and-legal-services-to-prepare-for.
[27] “Chief Justice’s Message,” Singapore Judicial College, https://www.judiciary.gov.sg/singapore-judicial-college/chief-justice-message.
[28] Randall T Shepard, “The Judiciary’s Role in Economic Prosperity” (2011) 44 Indiana Law Review 987, 992.
[29] 2020 Rev Ed.
[30] “Contempt of Court: Scandalising the Court,” Law Commission Consultation Paper No 207, 2012, http://lawcom.gov.uk/app/uploads/2015/06/cp207_Scandalising_the_Court_summary_of_conclusions.pdf.
[31] “Oral Answer by Minister for Home Affairs and Minister for Law, Mr K Shanmugam, to Parliamentary Question on Attracting Legal Talent to the Singapore Judiciary,” March 21, 2018, https://www.mlaw.gov.sg/news/parliamentary-speeches/oral-response-by-minister-k-shanmugam-on-attracting-legal-talent-to-the-singapore-judiciary.
[32] Attorney-General v Hertzberg Daniel and others [2009] 1 SLR(R) 1103.
[33] Shadrake Alan v Attorney-General [2011] 3 SLR 778.
[34] Au Wai Pang v Attorney-General [2016] 1 SLR 992.
[35] Section 3(1)(a) of the AJPA provides that any person who scandalises the court by intentionally publishing any matter or doing any act that – (i) imputes improper motives to or impugns the integrity, propriety, or impartiality of any court; (the first limb) and (ii) poses a risk that public confidence in the administration of justice would be undermined (the second limb).
[36] Valerie Koh, “Heated debated in Parliament as contempt Bill passed” Todayonline, August 16, 2016, https://www.todayonline.com/singapore/heated-debate-contempt-bill-passed.
[37] Wham Kwok Han Jolovan v Attorney-General [2020] SGCA 16 at [36].
[38] Amy E Nivette, “Cross-national predictors of crime: A meta-analysis” Homicide Studies 15, no. 2 (2011): 103–131.
[39] Michael Teo, “Singapore’s policy keeps drugs at bay,” The Guardian, June 5, 2010, https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2010/jun/05/singapore-policy-drugs-bay.
[40] Claudio Detotto and Edoardo Otranto, “Does Crime Affect Economic Growth?” Kyklos (Basel) 63, no. 3 (2010): 330–345.
[41] Claudio Detotto and Edoardo Otranto, “Does Crime Affect Economic Growth?” Kyklos (Basel) 63, no. 3 (2010): 330–345.
[42] Zachary Reynolds, “Intertwining Public Morality, Prosecutorial Discretion, and Punishment: Low Crime and Convictions in Singapore,” International Immersion Program Papers 61 (2021), http://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/international_immersion_program_papers/61.
[43] Maurice Bun, Richard Kelaher, Vasilis Sarafidis and Don Weatherburn, “Crime, deterrence and punishment revisited” Empirical Economics 59 (2020): 2303–2333, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00181-019-01758-6.
[44] Tham Yuen-C, “Parliament: Statistics, studies show death penalty deterred drug trafficking, firearms use and kidnapping, says Shanmugam,” The Straits Times, October 5, 2020, https://www.straitstimes.com/politics/parliament-statistics-studies-show-death-penalty-deterred-drug-trafficking-firearms-use.
[45] Lydia Lim, “Surveys show death penalty seen as a more effective deterrent than life imprisonment for some offences: Shanmugam,” ChannelNewsAsia, October 5, 2020, https://www.channelnewsasia.com/singapore/death-penalty-life-imprisonment-crime-deterrent-shanmugam-738021.
[46] Aqil Haziq Mahmud, “Majority of Singapore residents still support death penalty in latest MHA survey: Shanmugam,” ChannelNewsAsia, March 3, 2022, https://www.channelnewsasia.com/singapore/death-penalty-majority-singapore-residents-support-shanmugam-2535331.
[47] Aqil Haziq Mahmud, “Majority of Singapore residents still support death penalty in latest MHA survey: Shanmugam,” ChannelNewsAsia, March 3, 2022, https://www.channelnewsasia.com/singapore/death-penalty-majority-singapore-residents-support-shanmugam-2535331.
[48] “Yong Pung How struck fear in criminals and their lawyers who appealed their sentences before him. Here’s why,” Todayonline, January 10, 2020, https://www.todayonline.com/singapore/yong-pung-how-struck-fear-criminals-and-their-lawyers-who-appealed-their-sentences-him?.
[49] Lydia Lam, “Man admits posing as agent for ‘sugar daddies’ to lure 11 women into sex acts,” ChannelNewsAsia, March 18, 2021, https://www.channelnewsasia.com/singapore/sugar-daddies-babes-sex-blackmail-de-beers-wong-264321.
[50] Kenneth W Dam, “The Judiciary and Economic Development,” John M. Olin Program in Law and Economics Working Paper No. 287 (2006): 11, https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=892030.
[51] Lynne Peeples, “What the data say about police brutality and racial bias — and which reforms might work,” Nature, July 2, 2020, https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-01846-z.
[52] Jarmal Singh, “Community Policing in the Context of Singapore,” 112th International Training Course Visiting Experts’ Papers, Resource Material Series No. 56 (December 2000): 126-139, https://www.unafei.or.jp/publications/pdf/RS_No56/No56_14VE_Singh1.pdf.
[53] Jarmal Singh, “Community Policing in the Context of Singapore,” 112th International Training Course Visiting Experts’ Papers, Resource Material Series No. 56 (December 2000): 126-139, https://www.unafei.or.jp/publications/pdf/RS_No56/No56_14VE_Singh1.pdf.
[54] Jarmal Singh, “Community Policing in the Context of Singapore,” 112th International Training Course Visiting Experts’ Papers, Resource Material Series No. 56 (December 2000): 126-139, https://www.unafei.or.jp/publications/pdf/RS_No56/No56_14VE_Singh1.pdf.
[55] Mark Armstrong, “The World’s Safest Cities,” Statista, August 24, 2021, https://www.statista.com/chart/3178/the-worlds-safest-cities/.