Dissent reassuring

Some lawyers wore bandages to indicate the damage to the rule of law in Hong Kong. This was an appropriate symbol - the rule of law is wounded, but not fatally. Hopefully, the government is shell-shocked by the extent of public opposition to its handling of the crisis and it will think twice before resorting to expeditious means of dubious legality in future. If the government does not request further interpretations from the National People's Congress, the "wound" to the rule of law will heal.

It is worth making this point, because some investors seem to be overreacting. On and off the record, members of the business community worry about Hong Kong's commitment to the rule of law, with the implication that investors who rely on fair mechanisms for conflict resolution should look elsewhere. Hong Kong, the argument goes, risks losing its competitive edge in this respect to other financial centres in Asia.

But are things much better in other Asian business centres? In Singapore, for example, the rule of law is not in a healthy state. The Singapore government does not hide the fact that it makes life difficult for many who aim to enter the political arena on the side of opposition parties, and it has relied on the judicial process to achieve its aims.

Opposition politician Joshua Benjamin Jeyaretnam has been on the receiving end of several punishments administered by the country's courts. In the late 1980s, Mr Jeyaretnam appealed to the Privy Council in Britain, Singapore's highest court at the time. The council overturned a decision of the High Court of Singapore that Mr Jeyaretnam should be struck from the roll of advocates and solicitors in Singapore.

The Singapore parliament quickly passed an Amendment Act that abolished appeals to the Privy Council for disciplinary matters. On the face of it, the Amendment Act does not violate accepted legal norms - the Singapore government has the sovereign right to eliminate appeals to the Privy Council. In the context of politically-motivated attacks on opposition members, however, human rights group Asia Watch says the "Amendment Act will, and was intended to, encourage erosion of the independence of the Bar and judiciary in Singapore".

Of course, there was no public outcry in Singapore. But this should not be seen as an advantage. The rule of law needs to be supported by "family members" - the freedom of the press, the freedom of association and academic freedom. These freedoms allow critics of a government to fight for the rule of law when it is threatened, which is the best way of ensuring that similar things won't happen again. In Hong Kong, it is quite remarkable that independent newspapers, professional associations and academics have publicly condemned the government's actions without fear of retaliation.

Once again, it is worth comparing Hong Kong to Singapore. Lawyers do not demonstrate against the government in Singapore and the reason is not mysterious. In 1986, Singapore Law Society President Francis Seow criticised a government legislative proposal to restrict the circulation of foreign publications carrying critical analysis of Singapore politics. The government subsequently subpoenaed the entire Law Society Council. Most of the interrogation was carried out by Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew.

He told them: "It is my job as prime minister in charge of the government to put a stop to politicking in professional bodies. If you want to politick, come out . . . You want to politick, you form your own party or join Mr Jeyaretnam . . . You think you can be smarter than the government and outsmart it, well, if you win, you form the government. If I win, we have got a new Law Society. It is as simple as that."

Mr Lee won - the government established a new Academy of Law whose governing body is almost exclusively comprised of government appointees.

Mr Seow's trials and tribulations were not over, however. In May 1988, he was arrested under the Internal Security Act, a relic of the British colonial past which provides for detention without trial. The government declared that it had detained Mr Seow because an Internal Security Department investigation had revealed that he was in "close contact" with United States diplomat E Mason Hendrickson, but it provided no evidence that Mr Seow had acted either illegally or improperly.

Mr Seow now lives in exile in the US. Since 1990, he has been a visiting fellow with the East Asian Legal Studies programme at Harvard Law School. In 1996, he delivered a critical speech on the Singapore judiciary at Williams College. The event was also attended by opposition politician Chee Soon Juan, who was subsequently censured by the Singapore parliament for failing to rebuff Mr Seow's criticisms.

Once again, lawyers did not take to the streets to protest against threats to the rule of law. Nor did other sectors of Singaporean society.

Silence, however, should not be taken as a sign that all is well. Nobody will come to the aid of social critics - or investors - victimised by unfair legal procedures in countries that do not respect freedoms of speech and association.

In Hong Kong, lawyers, business groups, religious authorities, journalists, academics, and opposition politicians can and do defend the independence of the judiciary against the government. The flowering of dissent since the handover should bring comfort to investors worried about the consistent rule of law in the territory.

Daniel Bell is associate professor in the Department of Philosophy at the University of Hong Kong, and taught at the National University of Singapore from 1991 to 1994.