[CALS-WJP] Research Conference on Advancing the Rule of Law in Asia Pacific – A Regional World Justice Project

On 28 June 2024, the Centre of Asian Legal Studies (CALS), in collaboration with the World Justice Project (WJP) and with the support of the Ministry of Law of Singapore (MinLaw), held a research conference on the theme of “Advancing the Rule of Law in Asia Pacific” at the National University of Singapore (NUS) Faculty of Law. More than 50 participants attended the event, including academics, legal practitioners, civil society actors, and government officials from various jurisdictions.

The one-day conference, divided into three panels, kicked off with opening remarks by Associate Professor Jaclyn Neo, Director of CALS; Sarala Subramaniam, Director General (International & Advisory) of Ministry of Law; and Elizabeth Andersen, Director of WJP.  The event closed with special remarks from the Minister of State, Rahaya Mahzam.

In the welcome remarks, Professor Neo stressed the importance of promoting dialogues among scholars and practitioners to build regional knowledge and contextual understanding of the Rule of Law (ROL), given the ideal’s foundational significance to Singapore’s judiciary and society. Ms Subramaniam elaborated on an outcome-based conception of ROL that is oriented towards achieving good governance in Singapore. She pointed out that the ROL should not remain an aspiration but a living experience that manifests in social trust, public safety, equal opportunity, affordable housing, and various aspects of social life. Ms. Anderson introduced WJP’s work in building knowledge, creating awareness, and stimulating actions to promote ROL across the globe. Drawing on the latest data of the WJP index, she gave an overview of the trends of ROL development in Southeast Asia.

The first panel, titled “Criminal Justice Challenges in Asia Pacific”, featured four speakers. Associate Professor Chen Weitseng (NUS Law) gave a thought-provoking presentation on authoritarian legality, in which he suggested that the belief in pragmatism and statism shared among Chinese legal professions in China may explain why party-controlled judiciary was strategically adopted for legal reforms in the 1930s as well as in contemporary China. Associate Professor Cheah Wei Ling (NUS Law) noted the ROL concern for uncertainty raised by ASEAN states regarding the scope and application of universal jurisdiction as a principle of international law. Professor Tyrell Haberkorn (University of Wisconsin-Madison) reflected on how civil society actors’ struggles over impartial judiciary can take creative forms and unconventional thinking that mainstream studies often neglect or treat on the margin. Finally, Mr. Wong Kok Weng (Public Defender of Singapore) showed how the Public Defender Office had purposefully designed certain operational features to facilitate the public’s access to justice in Singapore.

In the second panel, “Defending and Strengthening Judicial Independence”, Professor Kevin Tan introduced the first gatekeeping of judicial independence, namely judicial appointment. He spoke on the external interference with judicial independence and offered a comparative analysis of the pros and cons of a judicial council. This followed by Dr. Raeesa Vakil’s (NUS Law CALS) presentation on the administrative factors that affect judicial independence internally. She discussed a recent controversy in the Supreme Court of India and showed how justice can be obstructed by judges’ manipulation of bench composition, case allocation, and case listing. Professor Bjoern Dressel (Australian National University) call for a deeper contextual understanding of ROL. He proposed an empirical methodology for ascertaining judicial independence that aimed at identifying patterns of patronage and clientelism. This ‘relational approach’ was to be distinguished from the traditional analytic models that focused on rational strategies and institutions in treating judicial autonomy as embedded in social relations defined by informal practices and social dynamics. Dr. Fritz Siregar (University of Pancasila) used a recent decision by the Indonesian court to discuss how courts can be insulated from the pressure of public opinion.  Professor He Xin (University of Hong Kong) argued that the value of judicial independence is instrumental, not intrinsic, to the extent that it aims to achieve substantive justice. He defended China’s pragmatic approach, which does not take the Western model of judicial independence for granted while continuing its legal reforms.

In the last panel, “Transparency, Anti-Corruption, and Accountability”, Assistant Professor Torkplus Yomnak (Chulalongkorn University), demonstrated the importance of holding public authority accountable with open data and the obstacles which Thailand’s digital and legal structures pose to achieving it. This was followed by Associate Professor Marco Garrido (University of Chicago) ‘s account of Philippines’s anti-corruption history. He cautioned the cynicism entailed by the myth that ‘Philippines is always corrupt’ may lend itself to the rise of populist authoritarianism. Associate Professor Eugene Tan (Singapore Management University) explained from a theoretical perspective how corruption erodes people’s trust in public institutions, which, he stressed, was crucial to Singapore’s political stability and economic growth. Finally, Ms Cynthia Gabriel, founder of C4 Centre, gave a practical perspective with a discourse on Malaysia’s attempts to improve government transparency since 2018 and the challenges faced.