TABLE 1 Crime in the Form of Legislations

Pre-Discussion Essay

! 1!

Massacre'of'1965.1966'in'Indonesia'CHRIS!MEGANANDA!

!

!

The!year!of!1965!–!1966!is!one!of!the!darkest!time!of!Indonesia!history,!in!those!year!

the!government!through!its!military!power!in!the!guise!of!“cleansing”!the!nation!

from!the!communism!ideology!perform!what!can!be!categorized!as!an!genocide!

where!hundreds!of!thousand!communist!sympathizer!were!murdered.!

!

BACKGROUND!

Some!say!this!incident!started!when!the!first!president!of!Indonesia!Ir.!

Soekarno!in!1959!issued!a!new!governmental!principle!called!NASAKOM!which!is!an!

acronym!for!Nasionalisme!(Nationalism),!Agama!(Religion),!and!Komunisme!

(Communism)!and!the!pillar!for!the!system!was!the!military,!the!many!religious!

leader,!and!the!communist!party,!and!for!the!purpose!of!enforcing!the!NASAKOM!

movement!President!Soekarno!issued!Dekrit!Presiden!Soekarno!5!July!1959!and!Tap!

MPRS!No.!VIII/MPRS/1959!that!introduced!“demokrasi!terpimpin”!system.!As!the!

time!goes!the!demokrasi!terpimpin!system!and!the!NASAKOM!principle!does!not!

produce!a!good!result!and!some!even!considered!it!bad!results,!where!the!nation!

economy!crumbles,!inflation!of!currency!occurs,!and!the!general!low!quality!of!living!

in!Indonesia.!In!truth!there!are!many!factors!that!allowed!such!an!situation!to!

occurs,!alongside!the!flawed!system!and!principle!there!are!corruption!problem!

among!high!–!ranking!officials,!the!illness!of!president!Soekarno,!international!

problem!with!the!worldwide!war!against!communism!(Cold!War)!where!there!are!

concern!from!international!party!about!Indonesia!becoming!a!communist!nation!and!

the!problem!with!Malaysia!that!begun!with!the!attack!on!Indonesia!embassy!and!the!

mockery!of!president!Soekarno!that!leads!to!small!scale!war!in!Kalimantan!where!

Indonesia!lost!because!of!low!morale!and!lack!of!support!from!the!citizen!because!

the!effect!of!war!on!the!economy.!These!many!problem!leads!to!lessened!support!of!

president!Soekarno!from!the!citizen!and!the!military!and!force!Soekarno!to!seek!

support!from!the!communist!party!(PKI,!Partai!Komunis!Indonesia).!

! !

!!!!!!!!!!The!culmination!of!problems!that!happened!in!Indonesia!reached!its!peak!in!

1965!when!there!are!news!about!the!plan!for!coup!de!etat!against!President!

Soekarno,!before!continuing!the!writer!would!like!to!clarify!that!the!fact!to!this!day!

are!still!not!clear!about!the!incident!and!the!writer!tells!the!story!according!to!many!

sources.!The!coup!de!etat!was!rumored!to!be!carried!by!several!military!official!

which!include!6!high!–!ranking!general!and!several!high!ranking!official!which!called!

themselves!DEWAN!JENDRAL!that!does!not!support!Soekarno!view!on!NASAKOM!

principle!and!wish!to!replace!him,!this!rumor!reached!Soekarno!and!orders!these!

military!official!to!be!apprehended!but!the!unit!that!was!send!to!do!this!task!which!is!

! 2!

cakrabirawa!unit!(some!kind!of!Indonesia!Secret!Service)!allegedly!murdered!and!throw!the!bodies!of!these!military!official!to!a!well!(The!facts!are!still!not!clear!on!who!actually!commits!the!murder)!,then!the!murder!was!blamed!on!the!Communist!party!(PKI)!because!the!connection!of!some!member!of!cakrabirawa!unit!to!the!DEWAN!REVOLUSI!the!opposition!to!the!DEWAN!JENDRAl!that!has!connection!to!the!Communist!party,!this!incident!was!remembered!in!Indonesia!history!as!G\30S/PKI.!!! The!G\30S/PKI!Incident!leaves!the!nation!without!its!military!leaders,!to!fix!this!problem!President!Soekarno!Issued!SUPERSEMAR!(Surat!Perintah!Sebelas!Maret,!Eleven!March!Directive)!that!gives!Major!General!Soeharto!the!authority!to!do!whatever!it!takes!to!restore!order!from!the!resulting!chaos!of!G\30S/PKI.!Soeharto!as!one!of!the!first!person!whom!blamed!the!murder!of!high!ranking!general!and!military!official!to!PKI!orders!that!every!government!official!from!the!communist!party!to!be!striped!from!their!office!and!detained!along!with!every!individual!in!Indonesia!that!support!the!communist!party,!to!achieve!this!goal!many!torture!procedure!occurs,!hundreds!of!thousand!murder!was!commited!by!the!military!in!the!guise!of!“cleansing”!the!nation!from!communism!and!bringing!back!order,!and!none!of!the!murder!commited!was!brought!to!trial!because!it!was!their!“job”!to!do!so!even!though!many!person!that!was!murder!actually!doesn’t!have!connection!to!the!communist!party.!Thus!it!is!in!my!opinion!the!nation!commits!act!of!genocide!to!its!citizen!in!the!guise!of!ideology!and!political!interest.!!ANALYSIS!! This!incident!though!started!from!in!my!opinion!bad!political!choices,!actually!has!many!layers!of!causes,!from!the!economic!standpoint,!the!general!resentment!againt!communism,!propaganda,!and!many!political!interest!of!many!included!party!thus!cannot!be!blamed!on!just!“bad”!legislation!because!the!choices!that!leads!to!these!legislation!where!influenced!by!many!parties!(some!even!say!CIA!was!included).!!CONCLUSION!! In!my!opinion!the!only!solution!to!avoid!such!an!incident!in!the!future!is!to!avoid!preferences!to!any!kind!of!ideology!(except!the!ideology!that!was!stated!in!the!constitution),!such!as!in!this!case!communism!that!was!included!in!NASAKOM,!because!these!preferences!if!there!are!any!leads!to!social!disparity,!clash!even!among!the!nation!citizen!and!breeds!hatred,!hatred!that!allows!massacre!of!many!communism!sympathizer!by!their!on!brothers.!Another!solution!is!transparency!of!military!action!especially!when!concerning!with!the!lives!of!the!citizen!and!cultivation!of!an!broad!ideology!which!is!based!on!the!constitution!so!as!the!citizen!has!a!firm!belief!in!the!government!and!willing!to!support!the!government!in!order!to!prevent!another!foreign!ideology!shatter!our!own!ideology.!

! 3!

!!UUD'Republik'Indonesia'Nomor'12'Tahun'2003,'Pasal'60'Huruf'G:'How'to'Kill'a'Communist'

Dino!Rafiditya!Pradana!'Indonesian!Communist!Purge!of!1965\1966,!is!undoubtly!one!of!the!darkest!part!in!Indonesian!history.!500,000!lifes!was!lost!due!to!the!manner!of!the!anti\communists!in!Indonesia.!It!was!started!with!a!staged!(failed)!coup!that!made!Indonesian!Communist!Party!(Partai!Komunis!Indonesia/PKI)!a!scapegoat!to!forge!the!path!for!Soeharto’s!presidency!which!survived!for!almost!32!years.!Soon!after!the!staged!(failed)!coup,!any!members!or!anyone!who!is!related!to!PKI!is!being!massacreed!all!over!Indonesia.!The!PKI!itself!got!banned,!up!until!today.!What!makes!the!matters!worse!is!not!only!that!countless!lifes!!were!lost,!but!what!happened!after.!After!the!incident,!PKI!was!banned,!and!there!are!regulations!made!by!the!Soeharto’s!government!to!seal!the!PKI!so!that!they!won’t!rise!anytime!in!the!future.!It!is!a!very!complex!situation:!Indonesia!was!under!pressure!on!picking!side!on!the!cold!war.!The!“West”!was!using!the!containment!policy!to!banish!communism!in!Asia.!While!Soekarno,!Indonesian!President!at!the!time,!was!trying!to!balance!the!3!main!forces!in!Indonesian!politics:!the!NASAKOM!(Nasionalis!Agama!Komunis/Nationalist,!Religion,!Communism).!!The!communism!part!wasn’t!the!best!interest!for!the!“West”.!!!So,!Soeharto,!backed!up!by!the!CIA!(according!to!John!Roosa’s!the!Pretext!for!Mass!Murder),!plan!a!staged!coup!to!banish!communism!from!the!Indonesian!soil.!The!plan!was!carried!out!by!the!G\30\S!movement.!In!the!scenario,!the!PKI!is!a!scapegoat!that!killed!6!of!Armies!generals!masked!as!an!attempted!coup.!But!then!the!coup!is!considered!as!a!failed!one!as!Soeharto!and!his!men!come!to!end!the!coup.!This!incident!made!interesting!points!for!Indonesian!future.!First,!it!launches!Soeharto’s!name!in!the!army,!making!him!a!high!ranking!officer,!which!in!the!end!making!him!a!president.!Second,!it!crushes!the!PKI!to!abolish!Soeharto’s!political!enemy!in!the!future.!To!keep!sealing!the!PKI!so!that!it!won’t!rises!anywhere!in!the!future,!Soeharto!launched!a!propaganda,!and!made!PKI!a!forbidden!organization!in!Indonesia!making!PKI!a!taboo,!a!trait!that!still!lives!in!today’s!Indonesia.!!In!2003!!(5!years!after!Soeharto’s!downfall)!Indonesian!government!launched!an!election!law!for!DPR!(Dewan!Perwakilan!Rakyat/House!of!Representatives),!DPRD!(Dewan!Perwakilan!Rakyat!Derah/Local!House!of!Representatives),!and!DPD!(Dewan!Perwakilan!Daerah/Local!Council!Representatives).!In!the!law!that!called!Undang\Undang!Dasar!Republik!Indonesia!Nomor!12!Tahun!2003,!Pasal!60!Huruf!g!(Constitution!of!Republic!of!Indonesia!Number!12,!Year!2003,!article!60,!letter!g),!

! 4!

this!infamously!unfamous!words!were!uttered:!“Calon!anggota!DPR,!DPD,!DPRD!

Provinsi,!dan!DPRD!Kabupaten/Kota!harus!memenuhi!syarat:!!g.!bukan!bekas!

anggota!organisasi!terlarang!Partai!Komunis!Indonesia,!termasuk!organisasi!

massanya,!atau!bukan!orang!yang!terlibat!langsung!ataupun!tak!langsung!dalam!

G30S/PKI,!atau!organisasi!terlarang!lainnya;”!

!

“The!House!of!representatives,!local!house!representatives,!and!local!council!

representatives!candidate!are!not!a!member!of!the!forbidden!organization,!Partai!

Komunis!Indonesia,!including!it’s!mass!organization,!or!not!people!who!involved!

directly!or!indirectly!in!G30S/PKI,!or!other!forbidden!organization”.!

!

It!shows!that!even!after!the!downfall!of!Soeharto,!the!influence!of!anti\communism!

manner!is!still!lives!in!Indonesian!lawmaker.!It!kills!of!the!political!right!of!the!ex\PKI,!

eventhough!let’s!say,!they!aren’t!even!a!communist!anymore.!It!is!against!the!

general!consensus!of!a!democratic!country!in!which!everyone!have!the!same!

political!right.!It!discriminates!some!people!due!to!their!past.!It!is!somehting!that!

shouldn’t!be!alive!in!the!modern!age.!Another!thing!is,!it!is!even!against!the!own!

Indonesian!basic!constitution,!article!1!verse!3!that!Indonesia!is!a!lawful!country,!and!

also!article!28!verse!A!through!J,!in!which!states!that!all!Indonesian!have!the!same!

right!to!express!their!freedom!of!thought!and!expression!including!political!rights.!

!

And!also,!this!kind!of!verse!is!a!ambiguous,!as!it!mentions!“not!a!member!of!the!

forbidden!organization,!Partai!Komunis!Indonesia,!including!it’s!mass!organization,!

or!not!people!who!involved!directly!or!indirectly!in!G30S/PKI”,!as!it!can!be!streched!

all!around.!What!if!one!parents’!is!directly!involved!with!the!staged!G30S/PKI!?!

Aren’t!their!children!is!indirectly!involved!as!they!don’t!stop!their!parents!of!doing!

so!?!This!kind!of!ambiguous!verse!is!dangerous!to!democracy!itself.!Again,!it!kills!of!

one’s!right!to!do!politics,!and!it!was!based!on!an!allegedly!false!accusation!to!the!PKI!

themselves.!One!obnoxious,!unfamously!infamous!law!made!based!on!a!false!

accusation!(at!least!according!to!research!done!by!the!likes!of!John!Roosa,!or!Ben!

Anderson).!

!

The!article!60!word!g,!is!an!unfair!law!that!kills!of!people’s!political!right.!It!is!a!crime!

against!humanity.!It!is!a!crime!against!the!Indonesian!law!itself.!It!is!a!crime!

commited!by!a!law!of!a!country.!A!crime!in!which!victims!are!those!whose!political!

right!are!injusticely!butchered!by!law.!Everyone!should!have!a!same!political!right!

nowadays,!regardless!of!their!political!choices!in!the!past.!

!!!!!

5

JanessaSit

Introduction

Thequestforthecertaintyregardingwhatthelawreallyiscontinuestoperturblegaltheorists,

asithasdoneforyears.Iwillsubmitinthisessaythatthebestanswertothisquestionisfound

inthecommonlawprocess,whichprovidesthemostpracticalandaccuratedepictionof

judicialbehaviourandthelegalprocess.Tosupportmyposition,Iwillberelyingonthe

followingtwocases: ReardonSmithvYngvarHansen-Tangen[1976]1WLR989[Reardon]andBeswickvBeswick[1967]3WLR932[Beswick].Iwillusethesecasestoevaluatethethreemainlegaltheoriesandtheirplaceinthelegalprocess:Legalpositivism,legalrealismandthe

commonlawtradition.

Thesemodelsoflegaltheoriescanbelaidacrossascale,oraspectrumthatmeasures

malleabilityandrigidity.Atoneextremeend,positivistsrecognizethelawasahardandun-

malleablestructure,comprisingonspecificallylaidoutrulessuchasasovereign(Austin)ora

democraticallyvotedlegislature(Hart).Totheend,lawsareappliedandjudgesarestrictrule-

appliers.Thatsaid,Reardonclearlyexposestheflawsinthepositivistsystem.Academically,

legalpositivistisappealing.However,whenappliedintotherealworld,thejudgmentin

Reardonshowshowthetheorycrumblesinthereal-world.Thus,inthefirstpartIwillexamine

thelimitationsofthetheoryofpositivismorstateism,anduncoveritsimpracticalitytoreal-life

situations.

Movingofffromoneendofthespectrum,wenaturallyadvancetotheotherend –legal

realism.Legalinstitutionsareartificeinthedoctrineoflegalrealism.Judgesareviewedas

problem-solverswhoareabletomakelawasandwhenthesituationarises.Thelegalprocess

onthisendishighlymalleable,andatthesametime,messy.Incontinuingmyanalysis,inthe

secondpartIwillexaminethecaseofBeswickinordertoexpoundoftheuntenabilityofacompleterealistapproachinalegalsystem.Instead,thecommonlawapproach,inlying

somewhereonthemiddlebetweenthetwoendsofpositivismandrealism,isultimatelythe

mostrealisticandidealisticexplanationofourlegalprocessandisonethathelpsachievethe

aimsofthelaw–boththeregulationofsociety,aswellastheattemptattheelusivegoalof

justice.

Fundamentally,itismyviewthatthecommonlawcansynthesisethestrengthsofbothlegal

positivismandrealism,whileatthesametimealleviatetheissuesofbothapproaches.Either

approach,onitsown,istooimpracticable.Fuller’squestfor“goodorder”1 providesagood

enunciationofthissubmission.Legalpositivismmightprovideordersimpliciter,butsuchorder

isnotgoodbecauseitdoesnotaddresstheneedsofthecitizens.Thekeyfunctionofthelawis

toachieveorderinsociety.However,legalrealismunderminesthispurpose.Boththe“good”

1 LonL.Fuller“PositivismandFidelitytoLaw”(1958)71HarvLR630at644

6

and“order”componentsareessentialinorganizingsociety,andthecommonlawfusesthe

relativestabilityoflegalpositivismwiththeflexibilityoflegalrealism.Thecommonlaw

traditionthusbestaccountsforthelegalprocessesthattakeplaceinpracticepreciselybecause

itisthemostpractical,realisticandworkablemodelforthelegalprocess,aswillbe

demonstratedinthispaper.

BeswickfromaRealistPerspectiveBeswickvBeswick[1968]AC58[Beswick]wasacaseinwhichtheplaintiff,Peter,promisedto

transferhisbusinesstohisnephewJohn,theDefendant,ifJohngavehima£6.10weekly

allowanceuntilPeter’sdeath,uponwhichJohnwouldgive£5aweektoPeter’swidow.After

Peterpassedaway,Johnfailedtoexecutehissideofthecontractinwithholdingpaymentto

Mrs.Beswick.Althoughunderthelawofprivity,Mrs.BeswickwasnotabletosueJohndirectly,

shecoulddosoinhercapacityoftheadministratrixofPeter’sestate.Shewaseventuallygrantedspecificperformanceasaremedy,sincemonetaryremedieswereinadequate.

InBeswick,theHouseofLordsrejectedLordDenning’sviewthatifthecontractconferredabenefitofathirdparty,thatpartycouldsue.ThiswasdespitethattheLawReformCommittee

in19372 agreedwithLordDenning’sview.Theywereuncomfortablewithenactingchangeto

thelawofprivitysincethatappearedtobeParliament’srole.However,LordDenning’sview

eventuallycametofruitioninthe1999Contracts(RightsofThirdParties)Act[CRTPA].3

BackwardsReasoningvstheRejectionofRealism

TheLords4 hadalreadyacknowledgedthatwhetherornotathirdpartycouldclaim

contractualrightswhenitbenefittedhimwasnotanissuethataffectedMrs.Beswick,since

shehadanalternativeroutetosueastheadministratrixofPeter’sestate.Insuchasituation,

theycontinuedtodebatethisissueforacademicreasons.

Legalrealists,likeJeromeFrank,wouldarguethattheUKHLwereusingaprocesstermed

“backwardreasoning”inachievetheirultimatedecision.Thiswouldjustifytherealistviewof

thelegalapproachtheLordstook.Esssentially,theyhadalreadyconcludedthatMrs.Beswick

wouldhavehadherremedy,evenbeforetheybeganconsideringestablishedlegalprinciple.

Frankstatesthatthe“mostsalient”featureofthejudicialprocessisthatthejudgesdecidea

caseimmediatelyafter“anemotiveexperienceinwhichprinciplesandlogicplayasecondary

part”5.Hence,therealistwouldarguethatBeswicksumsupthecriticismofthecommonlaw,

that“functionofjuristiclogicandprinciples…describestheeventwhichhasalready

transpired”.

2 [1968]AC58at723 1999,c.314 [1968]AC58at715 JeromeFrank,LawandtheModernMind,(NewJersey:TransactionPublishers,1930)at149

7

Truthfully,wedonotknowwhetherornottheoutcomeanddecisionwouldhaveremainedthe

same,hadMrs.Beswicknotbeensuingonherhusband’sbehalfasanalternativeroute.

Followingfromthatidea,thelegalrealistwouldbringoutthattheentirelegalprocessisa

sham.However,uponcloserinspection,weseeflawswiththisview.Itisunfairtoregardthat

thedecision-makingprocesswasoneaidedbybackwardreasoning.Eventhroughthe

judgmentinBeswick,theLordstookcaretocarryout“theintentionofParliament…fromthe

wordsoftheAct”6 (theActherereferringtos56oftheLawofPropertyAct1925[LPA]7 thatstates“apersonmaytakeanimmediateorotherinterestinlandorotherproperty…although

hemaynotbenamedasapartytotheconveyance…”).Theyalsoreliedonotherauthorities.

ThroughtheLordsclearlypointingouttheneedtoadheretolegislation,itisunfairtowhole

discreditthatandclaimtheyonlyintendedtoreasontosupporttheiralready-decideddecision.

Ifwelookcloser,itappearsthatinBeswick,theUKHLwereessentiallyrejectingLordDenning’sviewinoverrulingprivity.LordDenning,asajudgewhomakesstrongpragmaticdecisions,can

besaidtobethemodeloflegalrealism.TheUKHLcriticizedLordDenning’sjudgmentinthe

courtbelow,andsuggestedthatinhisoverly-practicalapproachtothedecisionhemade,he

haddisregardedthe“viewmorecommonheldinrecenttimes”.8 ItwasevenimpliedthatLord

Denninghaddisregardedparliamentaryintent. 9

Onthewhole,theLordsseemtohavebeenpushingfortheideathatanoverlypractical

approachwouldbeunsustainableinthelegalprocessinthelongrun;seeingastheywere

cautioustowardshowLordDenningessentiallycircumventedallestablishedauthoritiesto

uncoveranewrule.

Therefore,ifwetakeastepback,werealizethatBeswickwasalsonotadvocatinganentirelyrelistapproachtowardsthedecision-makingprocess.Instead,Beswickseemstoencompass

thecommonlawapproach,inthatthedecision-makingprocessisacarefulexercisein

exercisingdiscretionwhilereferringtoestablishedauthoritiesandlegislativeintent.Poundas

expressed,thecommonlawtraditionis“afunctionalpointofviewincontrastwiththepurely

anatomicalormorphological”viewsofthelegalprocess10,anditisfurthermoreaprocessthat

is“anadjustmentofprinciplesanddoctrinestothehumancondition”.11

Thecommonlawessentiallyisaculminationofbothrealistandpositiviststandpoints.While

thecommonlawthinkergenerallyacceptsthatbackwardreasoninghasitsdesirability,healso

6 [1968]AC58at737 1925,cl.208 [1968]AC58at729 [1968]AC58at8610 RoscoePound,“JudgeHolmes’ContributionstotheLawofScience”(1921)34HarvLR449at45011 RoscoePound,“MechanicalJurisprudence”at610

8

lookstolegalinstitutionsandauthoritiesinordernottoupsetprinciplesofcertainty.Inthat

samevein,thecommonlawapproachbalancestherelationshipofthejudiciarytothecitizen

againsttherelationshipofthejudiciarytothelegislature.

Ultimately,thecourtinBeswickwasrestrainedtoanextentbytheexistingauthoritiesthat

werepresent,andthejudges,inexercisingdiscretion,recognizedtheneedtolimitthis

discretion.

TheCommonLawasaBackwardLookingMechanism

Nonetheless,Beswickdoesbringoutonelimitationofthecommonlaw,primarilythatthe

commonlawapproachisabackwardlookingapproach.Frankpointedoutthatjudges,intheir

fearofoverrulingestablishedprecedents,wereconcernedwith““possiblebadeffect(s)ofa

justopinionintheinstantcase”onfuturecases.12 TherealistwouldpointoutthatBeswickwastheperfectchancefortheLordstoreconsidertheruleofprivity,adoctrinethathasbeen

longquestioned.Instead,fearheldthejudgesbackfromsteppinguptomakeadecisiononthe

issue.

IfwelookatsomepartsofthejudgmentinBeswick,thisargumentseemstoholdsome

weight.TheLordschosetocircumventthegeneralruleofprivityandinsteadchosetotakea

narrowapproachindebatingtheissueofwhethers56oftheLPAcouldcreateanexception. 13

LordReidchosetoavoiddiscussingprivityasageneralrulebysimplystatinghe“wouldnot

dealwithitinacasewhereitisnotessential.”14 Withallduerespect,hadanalternative

remedynotbeenavailabletoMrs.Beswickandthecourtchosetoupholdprivity,abartowards

Mrs.Beswickachievingjusticewouldhavebeencreated.

TheLords’evasivenessonthematterscomesfromthecriticismthatthecommonlawis

backwardlooking.LordUpjohnopinedthatthelawlordscouldnotoverruledecisionsthat“go

backover100years”.15 Strongcommonlawsupporters,suchasHolmes,describethecommon

lawlegalprocessasonethatreliesonexperienceratherthanlogic.Assuchtheprocessisvery

muchdependentuponitspast.16 PollockandMaineechothisview.DespitePoundbeinga

commonlawadvocatehimself,hetoorecognizesthatwhilejudgesseekto“applynew

principlestosituationsoldandnew”,oftentimes,thejudiciaryreliesonoldprinciplesand

authorities.17 Assuch,thejudiciaryisoftenadversetowardschangeandthiscanhinderthe

functionofthecommonlaw.Inthiscase,whenthejudgeschosenottodiscusstheissuewith

12 JeromeFrank,“LawandtheModernMind,”(NewJersey:TransactionPublishers,1930)at15413 [1968]AC58at8314 [1968]AC58at7215 [1968]AC58at9516 OliverWendellHolmes“TheCommonLaw”(1881)at517 RoscoePound“CommonLawandLegislation”(1908)21HarvLR383at406

9

privity,theCRTPAwasonlyenacted30yearslater.

However,weshouldnotbetooquicktoattackthebackwardlookingnatureofthecommon

law.Althoughitmighthinderchangefromtakingplace,thisapproachhelpsthedecision-

makingprocesstobeacareful,measuredone.Thishelpscircumventthedangersoftherash

approachthatrealistspropose.Withoutrelianceonestablishedauthoritiesandlegislation,the

trustthatthecitizenhasinthelegalsystemweakens.Ifjudgescoulddecideacasehowever

theywanted,thereisthelackofaccountabilitythatoneseeksofthesystem,undermining

society’sconfidenceinthejusticesystem.

Also,whilelegalposivitismpurportsthatthelegislaturecanenactchangesefficiently,inreality

thisissubjecttomanylimitationsexacerbatedbythecomplexbureaucracyofasociety.Thisis

alsoevidentintheexamplementionedearlier,wheretherewasahugetimelagbetweenthe

LawReformCommittee’srecommendationin1937andlegislativechangein1999.Thus,the

backwardlookingapproachthatthecommonlawadoptsmaynotbeasmuchofahindranceto

thelegalprocessasseemstobesuggested.Positivismsuffersfromtimelagsandcomplexities,

whereasrealismonlycircumventsthesetimelagsthroughunderminingtheimportanceof

establishedauthoritiesandinstitutions.

Althoughabackwardlookingapproachappearstohinderandplacealimitonflexibility,such

limitationsarenecessarytowardupholdingcertaintyaswellasstabilitywithintheprocessof

justice.Infact,theapproachhelpsreachacompromisebetweenthetwoextremeendsofthe

spectrum.

ReardonfromaPositivistPerspective

InthecontractualcaseofReardonSmithvYngvarHansen-Tangen[1976]1WLR989[Reardon][2010]SGHC82,acontractwasmadeforanoiltankertobecharteredpriortoitsconstruction.

Theoiltankerwasconstructedaccordingtothecontractualspecifications,butthenameofthe

tankerwasdifferentfromwhatwasstipulatedbytheparties.Eventually,inafailingmarket

thatwasbroughtaboutbytheoilcrisis,thecharterers,inseekingtoescapeabadbargain,

soughttorelyonthetechnicalityinordernottoperform.Unders13oftheSaleofGoodsAct1893[SGA]18,aconditionisimpliedthatgoodsmustcorrespondwiththeir“description”.Since

thetankerhadadifferentnamethanwhatwasdescribed,thecharterersseekedtorepudiate

thecontract.Thecourtdisagreed,holdingthats13couldnotapply.

Thiscaseessentiallyoverruledmanycasesthatreliedontherulethattechnicalbreaches

amountedtoabreachofconditionunders13ofSGA.InArcosvRonaasen[1933]AC470,timberstaveswererejectedbecauseofminutemeasurementmistakes,despitethattheycould

stillservetheverysamepurposethattheywerepurchasedfor.InReardon,LordWilberforce

18 1893, c. 71

10

declinedtofollowprecedent,oreventheSGA,regardingprecedingcasesasoverlytechnicaland“dueforfreshexamination”.19

TheProblemswithHart’sCore-PenumbraDistinction

LordWilberforceheldthatsincethenameofshipwasonlyameansofidentification,itasnot

crucialtothedescriptionofthetanker. 20 Thus,thecontractcouldnotberepudiatedsincethe

nameofthetankercouldnotfallwithintheambitof“description”unders13oftheSGA.

ThepositivistwouldbringupHart’score-penumbradistinctionandpointoutthatReardonisaperfectexampleofthiscore-penumbradistinction.Inthiscase,thenameofthetankerfellinto

thepenumbraoftherule.Hartproposesthateverystatutehasa“coreofsettledmeaning”as

wellasapenumbra.Whereasituationfallswithinastatute,thejudgecansimplyplaytherole

ofarule-applier,andonlyinrarecaseswherethecasefallsintothepenumbrawouldthejudge

considerthepurposeofthestatuteinhisdecision.Followingthis,apositivistwouldarguethat

“name”ofthetankerfellwithinthepenumbra,notthecoreofthestatute,whichallowedthe

judgestoexercisediscretionintheirjudgment.Atfirstblush,thisisastrong,plausible

contention,butacloserinspectionwouldrevealtheflawofHart’score-penumbradistinction.

Thefirstmainproblemwefacewiththecore-penumbradistinctionisthatlanguageisnot

enoughforustounderstandthedistinctionbetweenthecoreandthepenumbra.Additionally,

thereisoftentimesnocleanbreakbetweenthecoreandthepenumbra.IfweapplyHart’s

modeltoReardon,theproblemarisesastowhereexactlythepointofdefinitionofthe

meaningofword“description”ins13oftheSGAstartsandends.Severalquestionsarise,for

instance,whatisthecoreoftheword“description”?Onwhatbasiscanonearguethatthe

nameofatankerisnotpartofit’s“description”?Positivistsarethuslimitedbytheirheavy

relianceonlanguagetoencapsulatethepurposeofalaw.

InReardon,therewasmuchmorethanjustlanguagethatcoulddetermineifthenameofthe

tankerwasacondition,abreachofwhichwouldwarrantrepudiation.Inthejudgmentof

Reardon,thejudgescontinuallyexaminedthecontextandpurposeofthestatutetohelpthem

throughthedecision-makingprocess.

Assuch,Reardonasacaseneatlybringsouttheimpracticalityofthiscore-penumbra

distinctionapproachthatHartproposes.Commonlawadvocates,suchasFuller21,havebeen

pointingoutthesamecriticism.Thepurposeofalaw,aswellasit’scontextualinterpretation,

arebothcrucialtotheprocessofdecision-making,seeingashowlanguagecanlimitus.When

welookedathowajudgeshoulddecideifanamefallswithintheambitof“description”ina

statute,Hart’smodelcrumbled.

19 [1976]1WLR989at99820 [1976]1WLR989at99921 LonL.Fuller“PositivismandFidelitytoLaw”(1958)71HarvLR630at662

11

TheFaçadeofUpholdingCertainty

LordWilberforcealsoquestionedthe“excessivelytechnical”precedentsthatreliedheavilyon

applicationofs13oftheSGA,evenwheresuchtechnicalbreacheshadnegligible

consequencesonparties. 22 Thisledtotheabsurdlyunjustoutcomeofpartiesescapingbad

bargainssimplybyvirtueofminutetechnicalerrors.Legalpositivismresultsinthejudgebeing

restrainedtostrictruleapplicationwithouttheavailabilityofdiscernmentorinformed

thought.

OneinsupportofpositivismmaygosofarastosaythatReardonwaswronglydecided,sincethelawexpresslystatedins13shouldhaveapplied.Hewouldarguethatthelawisa

mechanismforcertainty,especiallysoinacommercialcontextwithstrongconsiderationsof

commercialcertaintyinlegalrelationsshouldapply.

Thecounter-argumenttothisisthat,ironically,thepositivistapproachmayinfactleadto

uncertaintyratherthanupholdcertainty.Fuller,acommonlawtheorist,pointedoutthatthe

legalprocessisatwo-way,reciprocalrelationshipbetweencitizensandthelaw.Thereis

mutualrespectbetweenbothparties.Assuch,applyingthistoReardon,acitizenwouldnotexpectthataninconsequentialbreachofnoeffectonpartiescouldunderminethevery

principlesofcertaintythatthelawoughttouphold.Certaintyandcontractualsanctitywould

thusbeunderminedbyatechnicalbreachofsomething“obviouslyimmaterial” 23 toboth

parties.Itwasthisveryrefusalofallowingrepudiationthatupheldtheparties’trueintentions

andupheldthecommercialcertaintythelawseekstoaffordcitizens.Thus,morecertaintywas

achievedasaresultofnotstrictlyapplyingrulesastheyare.

CommonLawasaFacilitatorofChange

ThejudgesinReardondidrecognizethattheywereshiftingawayformthecommonlaw

precedentsthatdealtwiththismatter,butthatdidnotstopthemfromoverrulingthose

precedents.Positivistswouldnotagreewithsuchchangesbutinsteadarguethatafixed

systemwouldstillbethewaytogo,comparedtotheunstructuredsystemofcommonlawand

realists.However,inReardon,itwasthiscommonlawfluiditythatinfacteffectedchangethat

wasjustforthecircumstances.Thecommonlawfluidityenabledachangethatoverturneda

hostofabsurdcasesofthepast.Whilethelegislaturecanindeedamendits’laws,this

feedbackmechanismislimited.Legalrealismislargelybasedonthecloserrelationship

betweenthejudgeandthecitizen,asopposedtothenot-so-closerelationshipbetweenthe

legislatureandthecitizen,sinceajudgeisabletofullyunderstandtheindividualfactualmatric

ofacitizen’scase.Itwaspreciselythisrelationshipandjudicialdiscretionthatallowedthe

22 [1976]1WLR989at99823 [1976]1WLR989at1001

12

JudgesinReardontobeabletosetstraighttheruleinundesirableprecedents.

Havingsaidthat,therealist’sexcessiveneedtoconstantlyweighfactorsandcircumstances

mayposeathreattotheefficiencyofthelegalsystem.InReardon,thejudgesreliedtooheavilyontoomanyconflictingfactors.Hence,thesensibleandpracticallimitationthatthe

commonlawapproachputsforwardincausingresistancetochangeiswelcome.

Problem-SolvingorApplyingtheRule?

AninterestingobservationisthatLordWilberforcebeginshisleadingjudgmentdescribingthe

problemathand.24 Thisisnotablewhenwecompareittoprecedingcases,whichoutrightly

stateds13oftheSGAandappliedthesectionthedisputeratherthanviceversa.InLord

Wilberforce’sjudgment,heonlyreferstothestatuteinthelaterpartofhisjudgment,after

havingwentthroughallthecircumstancesandfactsofthecase.25

Further,evenintheprocessofhimmentioningthestatute,hedisregardsitinsofarashepoints

outitsinapplicabilitytothesituationandholdingthatthepresentcaselaidbeyondtheambit

ofs13oftheSGA.

LordWilberforce’sjudgmentcallsforwardthetensionbetweenpositivismandrealism.Should

thejudiciary’srolebethatoftheproblem-solver(realism)orrule-applied(positivism)?

PositivistswouldbeagainstLordWilberforce’sapproach.Theywouldarguethatthestarting

pointinanylegalinquirywouldbewhatthelawsays,notwhattheproblemis.

However,Reardondoesaccentuatetheproblemswiththepositivistapproach.TheBenthamite

approachreliesonthefallaciousassumptionthatallproblemsdofitwithinagivenrule.The

factualmatrixofReardon,inwhichthenameofatankerwouldhavebeenoflittle

consequencetobothparties26,nicelyencapsulateshowthelegalposivitistapproachofsimply

applyingtherulewouldhaveresultedinanunjustoutcome.Itdoesnotseemplausiblethat

thesolutionamyriadofproblems(whatwiththesheervariationsofwaysinwhichaproblem

cansurface)shoulddependonornotwhethertheyfitintorigidstatutesandrules.As

demonstratedbyReardon,regardingthejudiciaryasrule-appliersover-simplifiesanddiscredits

thecomplexitiesofreal-lifeproblems.

Ontheotherhand,legalrealistsorcommonlawadvocateswouldsupporttheprocessthat

LordWilberforceundertookinhisdecision–hebeganbylookingattheproblem.

LordSimon’sillustratestheproblem-solvingroleadvocatedbythecommonlawinhis

statement:“Itwouldbeoddwerethelawtoelevateamatterobviouslyimmaterialtothe

24 [1976]1WLR989at99425 [1976]1WLR989at99826 [1976]1WLR989at998

13

partiesatthetimeofcontractingintoamatteroffundamentalobligation”.27 Theproblemwas

the“obviouslyimmaterial”matterthecourtchosetolookat,andnottherule.Iproposethat

theproblem-solvingapproachbetteraccountsforthelegalapproachtheCourttookin

Reardon,andthatthecourtusedthisapproachrightly.

ConclusionToconclude,thecommonlawapproachbestdescribesthewayourcourtswork.Thisapproach

isonethatisworkableandhighlypractical.Whencontrastedwithpositivismandrealism,the

commonlawapproachgoesbeyondtheone-dimensionalprocessthattheformertwo

approachesadvocate.

Thecommonlawapproachhelpstotempertheflawsofbothends.Thelackofaccountability

withintherealistprocessissolvedthroughthereferraltoprecedents,andtherigidityof

positivismissoftenedthroughthediscretionJudgesexerciseinthecommonlawapproachto

decision-making.Adoptingthecommonlawapproachasthebestwayofapproachingthelegal

processisthebestasitassimilatesandneutralizesthebestandworstofpositivismand

realism.Asearliermentioned,it“adjustsprinciplesanddoctrinestothehumancondition”.28

Ultimately,thecommonlawapproachseekstocreateasystemthatcancatertothecitizen’s

needswhileretainingitsstability.

27 [1976]1WLR989at100128 RoscoePound,“MechanicalJurisprudence”at610

14

KimNaeun

29thNovember in 1954, the rulling party ‘Jayudang’ had amended the Constitutionwith the

reason of ‘Rounding off to the nearest interger(����)’. Though The party secured of a

parliamentarymajorityforthethirdelectionofthechamberofDeputies,itfailedtosecure136

quorumforconstitutionalamendment.Thenthepartysubmittedaconstitutionalamendment

includingthatthefirstpresidentwasnot limitedbyreappointment.However,withtheresult

thatthevotestoodat135ayes,60noesand7abstains,itwasrejected.Because135ayeswere

notenoughtosecurethequorumwhichwas135.33ayes,two-thirdsofincumbentAssembly.

ButJayudang,therullingparty,didnotaccepttheresultandproclaimedthattheamendment

hadbeenpassedwithaweirdlogicwhichis‘Roundingofftothenearestinterger’.Theiropinion

wasthat0.33couldnotbeanumberofahumanbeingandwasnotenoughtoregardasone

person.Withthisinsistence,theysaidthat0.33mustbedeletedand135shouldbeacceptedas

thequorum.Thereforejayudangmadethisitemdiscussedagainandtheoppositionlawmakers

leftassemblyhall.Therestayedonlymembersofrullingpartyand123of125memberssaidyes

totheamendment.

Itwasprovocativeenoughtomakethepublicupset.ItwasviolationoftheConstitution(reversing

and passing a bill which had been rejected already), violation of the National Assembly

law(neglectingtheopinionoftheoppositionparty,theChairmanofCongress,thechairperson),

andtheapplicationanillogiccompulsorily.Thenonsensedeedwaspossibleatthattimedueto

thegovernmentatthattimewhichwasanabsolutedespotism.Thisamendmentisahistorically

illegalamendmentwhichrunscountertothespiritoftheConstitution.

15

SeditionAct&FreedomofExpressioninMalaysiaOoi Zi

Inrecentyears,anissuethathasbeenplaguingthemindsofMalaysiancitizensisthatofthelaw

protecting(orrather,restricting)ourrighttofreedomofexpression,alsoknownastheSedition

Act1948.AlthoughitwasfirstintroducedbytheBritishwiththeintentionoflimitingthepowers

ofthoseprotestingagainstcolonisation,thedraconianActstillremainsinuselongafterMalaysia

obtained independence. In fact, thisActhasbeenenforcedmultiple timesover thepast two

decades,theaccusedrangingfromformerMembersofParliamenttonewspublicationstomere

universitystudents.

Inshort,thisActprohibitsanyactionsorspeechthatthelegalauthoritiesdeemseditious,or

that can be seen as going against the established order.While this can be construed as an

attemptonthegovernment'sparttostiflespeechthatareincitefulandthatmayendangerthe

safetyofMalaysiancitizens,itcanalsobeseenasanActthatwillmaketheoppressedandthe

underrepresentedmembersofsocietytoofearfultovoiceouttheissuesthateverybodyisaware

ishappeningbutthatnobodyaddresses.Infact,themannerinwhichithasbeenemployedthus

farindicatesthatit isatoolusedtoinfringehumanrightsforthemerepurposeoffurthering

politicalagenda.

This problem has further escalated in April this year, when the government made several

amendmentstotheAct.ThemainareacausinguneaseamongMalaysiansaretheclausesthat

makeitunlawfultomakeseditiousremarksontheinternet,evenifitisthemereactof“sharing”

alinkcontainingseditiousmaterialoreven“retweeting”atweet.Fromthis,itisclearthatthe

governmentintendstorestricttheflowofinformationthathasthepotentialtoshedanegative

lightontheauthorities.

CriticsoftheActhaveexpressedconcernontheambiguityoftheterm“sedition”withintheAct,

allowing it to potentially be abused by the authorities to use it in matters that may have

absolutelynorelevancetotheoriginalintentionoftheAct.Notonlywillthishavethepossible

outcomeofincriminatingmanyundeservingcitizens,itmightalsobeplacinglimitsonactivities

suchaspublicdebates,whicharenecessaryandan integralpartof strengthening thebonds

betweencitizensandreinforcingdemocracy.Notonlythat,thispieceof legislationdefiesthe

ruleoflaw,theconceptinwhichacountryisgovernedbyclearly-statedandwell-definedlaws,

asopposedtothearbitrarydecisionsofgovernmentofficials.

Althoughthisisnotasgraveanissueassomeothers–genocideandtorture,forexample–it

remains to be aworrisome problem thatMalaysians have to deal with until this day.Many

internationalvoiceshavedenouncedthisAct,deemingitdeplorableandashavingnoplacein

thisdayandage. Theverynatureof thisAct implies that thegovernment intends to silence

dissentingvoicesinaratherdictatorialmanner,andhopetoforcethenationtoconformtothe

samewayofthinkingandtonotholdanycontradictingopinions.Thiscanbequitedangerousas

16

havingthefreedomtothinkforoneselfisthetextbookdefinitionoffreewill,andwithoutfree

willMalaysiacannolongerconsideritselfademocraticcountry.

17

SiewYingLim

PreventivedetentionhasbeenahumanrightsviolationissueevenbeforeMalaysiahasgained

itsindependence.Oneoftheinfamouspreventivedetentionlawsdraftedduringthedarkdays

of Malaysia was the Internal Security Act 1960(ISA). The legislation was enacted after the

MalaysiaindependencefromBritainin1957tocombatthearmedinsurgencyoftheMalayan

CommunistPartyduringtheMalayanEmergency.Althoughcommunistinsurgencyisnolonger

anissueinMalaysia,thedraconianlawcontinuedtosubsistuntilitsrepealin2011.

UndertheISA,theMinisterofHomeAffairsmayissuepreventivedetentionordertodetaina

personbasedonnationalsecurityconsiderations.ISAallowedinitialdetentionof60dayswith

unlimited renewals based solely on the will of the Home Minister. After the communist

insurgency in1940sand1950s inMalaya, theMalaysiangovernmentcontinuestoarrestand

detainindividualswithoutwarrantandtrialbeforethecourt.Thelawwasusedagainstpolitical

dissidents,students,andlaboractivistswhohavethetendencytoupsetthestabilityandsecurity

ofthecountry.Thedecisionofdetentionisbasedsolelyontheopinionoftheministerandithas

effecttoexcludethepowerofthecourttoreviewthedecisionofthedetainingauthorityexcept

onproceduralgrounds.

UndertheISA,detaineeswillbeheldinthespecialpoliceholdingcentersforaninitialperiodof

60days,which isallegedly for investigationpurpose. Judicialorder isnot requiredunder the

detention.Tomaintainthesecrecyofthelocationoftheholdingcenters,thedetaineeswillbe

blindfoldedbeforetheyaretransportedtoandfromthesecenters.Thedetaineesaredenied

accesstolegalcounselandtheirfamilymembers.Duringthebeginningofthedetentionperiod,

detaineesareusuallysubjecttotortureandothercruel,inhumananddegradingtreatmentfor

investigationpurpose. This is against the international human right standard and thepeople

calledfortherepealofthisparticularpieceoflegislation.

Therearenobadlaws,onlybadenforcers.PerhapstheISAhasrightlyserveditspurposeduring

the communist insurgency in 1940s and 1950s but it was outdated and totally unfit for the

currentsociety.Thepoliticianstotheiradvantagetoquelldissentsandcurbtheiropponentshad

usedthispieceoflegislation;thisiswhyISAisabadlawbecauseitwasusedforanimproper

purpose.Thelawwasevenusedtodetainanunarmedreporterwhowasreportingthetruth

while it was drafted to arrest extremist and terrorist threat. Abdul Malek Hussin, a former

detaineeunderISAwasanexampleofunlawfulnessofusageISAbytheauthoritywherebyhe

wasbeatenandkickedwhenhewasdetained.Hewasalsosexuallyabusedandforcedtodrink

hisownurinewhileinthepolicecustody.

AVDiceystatedthat'nomanispunishableorcanlawfullybemadetosufferinbodyorgoods

exceptforadistinctbreachoflawestablishedintheordinarylegalmannerbeforetheordinary

courts of the land’. A guilty person should be tried openly before the court under proper

procedures.Preventivedetentionhasbeenclearlyabusedbythegovernmenttowardsinnocent

18

citizens.Although ISAwasrepealed, the issueofpreventivedetentioncontinuestosubsist in

Malaysiabytheexistinglaws.Itistimeforareformation.

19

TiffanyOwZiWei

IntroductionSingaporehasseenitsfairshareofwarandconflictdespiteitsrelativelyshorthistory.

Desperatetimescallfordesperatemeasuresandvariouslegislationhasbeenenactedin

Singaporetocounterthreatstooursociety.Amongstthesearelawswhichauthorise

preventivedetention,whichreferstodetentionwithouttrial.However,theselawsare

controversialamidstfearsofpotentialabuse,accusationsthattheyviolatefundamental

libertiesandconcernsregardingtheirrelevanceintoday’ssociety.

BackgroundPreventivedetentionwasfirstintroducedintheColonyofSingaporein1948underthe

EmergencyRegulationsOrdinance,tocounteraCommunistuprising.Thiswassucceededby

thePreservationofPublicSecurityOrdinancein1955aftertheHockLeebusriots.In1960,

MalayaenactedtheInternalSecurityActtodetercommunistactivity.WhenSingaporejoined

Malaysiain1963,theActwasincorporatedintoSingaporelawandretainedafterSingapore

gainedindependencein1965.IthassincebeenamendedandthecurrentversioninSingapore

istheInternalSecurityAct(Cap143,1985RevEd)[ISA].

UndertheISA,apersonmaybedetainedforuptotwoyearswithouttrialifthePresident,

actingontheCabinet’sadvice,issatisfiedthatthepersonposesarisktonationalsecurityor

publicorder.TheMinisterforHomeAffairsmaysuspendthedetention,butmayalsorevoke

thesuspensionifsatisfiedthatthepersonfailedtoobserveanimposedconditionorthatitwas

necessaryinthepublicinteresttodoso.

FearsthattheISAwillbeabusedGiventhepotentialabuseofdetentionpowersundertheISA,itisimportanttohavecheckson

executivepower,suchasjudicialreview.WithregardtotheISA,thescopeofjudicialreviewdependsonwhetherthePresidentandMinisterhadtobesatisfiedobjectivelyorsubjectively.

Anobjectivetestwouldallowthecourttoexamineiftherewassufficientevidenceforthe

PresidentorMinistertobesatisfied,whereasasubjectivetestwouldnot.

TheHighCourtadoptedasubjectivetestinLeeMauSengvMinisterforHomeAffairs,[1971]SGHC10,[1971-1973]SLR(R)135[Lee].However,thiswasoverturnedbytheCourtofAppealwhichadoptedanobjectivetestinChngSuanTzevMinisterforHomeAffairs,[1988]SGCA16,[1988]SLR(R)525[Chng].However,in1989,ParliamentamendedtheISAtofreezethelawregardingjudicialreviewatthedateofLee.InTeoSohLungvMinisterforHomeAffairs[1990]1SLR(R)347[Teo],theCourtofAppealaffirmedthattheamendmentsreinstatedthelegal

positioninLeeandrestoredthesubjectivetest.Nevertheless,theCourtofAppealinTeoleftthedooropenforthecourttodecidewhetherthePresident’sorMinister’ssatisfactionwasin

factbasedonmatterswithinthescopeoftheISA.Hence,thecourtmayinvalidateadetention

orderifadetaineecanshowthathewasnotdetainedonsecuritygrounds.

20

AccusationsthattheISAviolatesfundamentallibertiesTheCourtofAppealinChngheldthatasubjectivetestwasinconsistentwiththeConstitution,whichguaranteedrightstoequalityandequalprotection(Article12)andthefactthatjudicial

powermayonlybeexercisedbythecourts(Article93).However,in1989,Parliamentamended

theConstitutionsuchthattheISAisnotunconstitutionaldespiteitsinconsistencies.

AlthoughtheISAisnotunconstitutional,itmaystillbearguedthatpreventivedetention

violatesfundamentalliberties.Ontheotherhand,somebelievethatthisisanecessary

sacrificetopreservenationalsecurity.However,fundamentallibertyandnationalsecurityare

notmutuallyexclusive,andweshouldstrivetofindabalancebetweenthesetwovalues.

RelevanceofISAintoday’ssocietyTheISAwasprimarilyusedtocountercommunistthreatsinthepastbutwiththefallof

communism,somehavequestioneditsrelevanceintoday’ssociety.In2011,theDeputyPrime

MinisterandMinisterforHomeAffairsTeoCheeHeannotedthattheISAremainedrelevantto

combatadifferentthreat–terrorism.Mostdetaineessincethelate1980sweremembersof

themilitantorganisationJemaahIslamiyahorpeoplesharingitsideologyorplanningterror

attacks.Somehavearguedthatterrorismcanbecounteredusingexistingcriminaloffences.

However,theremaybeinsufficientevidencetoputapersoninvolvedinterroristactivitieson

trial,especiallyifwitnessesareafraidtospeakup.Inaddition,criminalproceedingsmay

becomeaplatformforhimtospreadhisextremistviews.Ontheotherhand,certain

proceduresmaybeputinplacetoprotectwitnessesandanopentrialmayrallysocietyagainst

extremistviews(JackTsen-TaLee,“ThePast,PresentandFutureoftheInternalSecurityAct”).

TheISAisnodoubtausefultooltocounterterrorism,butwhethertherearebetter

alternativesremaintobeseen.

ConclusionWhethertheISAshouldbemaintained,revisedorabolishedisnotaneasydecision.Itisa

usefultooltocounterthreatstonationalsecuritybutmaycausefearsofpotentialabuse,

accusationsthatitviolatesfundamentallibertiesandconcernsaboutitsrelevanceintoday’s

society.OneoptionistoretaintheISAtocombatthecurrentthreatofterrorismwhere

criminalproceedingsmaybeinadequate,restoretheobjectivetestandallowgreaterjudicial

reviewtopreventpotentialabuseofpower,andfinallybalancefundamentallibertyand

nationalsecuritybyensuringthatitisusedonlywhennecessary.

21

WentingYe

Asforlegislationsthatareconsideredmostsinisterinourmodernhistory,asaChinese,what

firstcomestomymindisthelegislationduringtheperiodofCulturalRevolution.Thefullname

ofwhichis"theGreatProletarianCulturalrevolution".Referstothepoliticalmovementofthe

ChinesenationfromMay1976toOctober1966inChinalaunchedbyMaoZedong,whichwas

usedbyLinBiaoandJiangQingtwoantiRevolutionGroup, bringsaseriousdisastertothe

Chinesenation.

ThenwhatabouttheCulturalRevolution?IstherearuleoflawduringtheCulturalRevolution?

Firstofall,theculturalrevolutionperiod,China'sformallawisonlytwo,a"Constitution",a

"Marriagelaw".Obviously,thesocialorderisnotonlyregulatedbythesetwolaws.Whatare

therulesofsocialpractice?Theanswerisimperative,istherulingparty'sresolution.Aspeech

ofMaoZedongintheBeidaiheconferencein1958canserveasareference:themajorityof

peoplecannotrelyonlegalgovernance......TheConstitutionwaswrittenbyme,andIcannot

rememberit......Eachofourresolutionisalaw,andeverymeetingisalaw......Wehaveall

kindsofrulesandregulations......Wedon'trelyonthese,mainlybyresolution......Notto

maintainorderincivillaw.Thepeople'sCongress,theStateCouncilmeetinghastheirownway

todothis,wealsorelyonourownway.”

Ascanbeseenfromtheresolution,thesocietyisnotchargedbylaw,butbytherulingparty's

will,intheformofresolutiontoregulate.Theoretically,therulingpartycanthroughthe

legislativeexpressionoftheirwillandthroughtheruleoflawtoachievethewill;however,itis

inevitabletherewillbemultiplesocialgameprocessifyoutakeaproceduralruleoflaw.Since

thenthesocialforceshaveopportunitiesfortheirowninterestsexpression,increasethe

difficultyoftherulingpartymonopolywillexpressionandreducetheflexibilityofit.Withthe

ruleofthepartyinsteadoftheruleoflaw,itiseasiertoreachthemaximumoftheruling

party'swill.

Allinall,theperformanceof“CulturalRevolution”underminetheruleoflawanddemocratic

canbeconcludedasbelow:

1.Violationsofhumanrights:therebelscriticize"capitalist"“reactionaryacademicauthority"

and“monster"everywhere.Alargenumberofleadersofthepartyandgovernmentatall

levels,celebritiesandacademics,wasbrutallydenouncedasthetraitorandtobesubjected

topersecution.AsPresidentLiuShaoqiwaspersecutedtodeath,resultinginthehistoryof

China'slargestinjustice.

2.Lawbecamenullandvoid:Duringtheturmoilof“CulturalRevolution",thefundamentallaw

ofthe"People'sRepublicofChina"—TheConstitution,hasbecomeadeadletterandisonly

alegalname,thebasicrightsandpersonalfreedomofcitizenshavelostprotection.

3.Rebelsseizepowerandattributetothedestructionofthesocialorder.Governmentleading

organsfromcentraltolocalareseizingpowerandparalyzedateachlevel.Conflicts

happenedeverywhere,workersleftthefactory,studentslefttheschool.Learningactivities

22

andnormalproductionhashaltduringthisperiod.RevolutionaryCommitteeswere

temporarypowerinstitutesineacharea.

4.Theinterruptionofdemocraticpoliticalsystem:thePeopleCongresshadnotheldforten

years,multi-partycooperationandpoliticalconsultationsystemledbytheCommunistParty

ofChinacannotbeimplemented.

Fortunately,aftertheCulturalRevolution,theCommunistPartyofChinare-startthe

constructionofChina'slegalsystemandgetrapidandsuccessfuldevelopment.Sincethethird

PlenarySessionof11thPartyCentralCommittee,toredressunjust,falseandwrongcasesas

wellasadheringtoandperfectingthePeopleCongressSystemwasasignificantpolitical

projectfortheCommunistPartyofChinatobringaboutanewhistoricalsituation.In1982,the

promulgationofthefourthsectionoftheConstitutioninthehistoryofNewChina,haslaida

solidlegalfoundationforthereformandmodernization.Then,thelegalsystemgradually

formed,legaleducationtookshape,legalthoughtgraduallydipintothelifefromthebooks,

andplaysanincreasinglyimportantroleinsociallife.What’smore,themovementof

popularizingtheconceptoftheruleoflawenhancethepeople’sknowledgeofit.In1999,the

CommunistPartyofChinaCentralCommitteemadeitclear“buildingasocialistcountryruled

bylaw”asabasicstrategy,andwrittenintotheConstitutionaswellasthegovernmentwork

report.Thisnotonlyfullyreflectstherequirementsofsocialprogress,andwillpromotethe

developmentofruleoflawinourcountrytoanewstage.

Inconclusion,weshouldlayemphasisontheauthorityofthelegalsystem.Andonlybythisway

canweliveaorderlylife.

23

CrimeofcounterrevolutionXiaoyiHe

Chinesecriminallawincludedcrimesofcounterrevolution,whichrefertocrimesthatendanger

statesecurityandpurposefullyoverthrowtheregimeofthecountry,namely,actswiththe

intentionofoverthrowingthepoliticalpowerofthecountryandactsthatobjectivelyendanger

statesecurity.Apparently,Crimeofcounterrevolutionwasoneofthemostserioussortof

crimesincriminallaw.Moreover,Crimesofcounterrevolutionaccountedformorethanhalfof

thecrimeswithdeathpenaltypunishment.Itsuggestedthatlegislatorsattachedgreat

importancetoutilizingcriminallaw,whichservesasasharpweapontoseverelypunish

varietiesofcounterrevolutionaryactivities.Insteadofbeingadefendantofthecharge,Ipersist

inabolishingthecrimeofcounterrevolution.Thereasonsaremanifoldandcanbelistedas

follow.

Firstly,CriminallawhadbeendeemedasaswordforPeople'sdemocraticdictatorship,akind

ofsharpswordtofightagainstcrimes.Meanwhile,itwasconsideredthatcrimewasakindof

veryseriouswrongdoingsthatanindividualinfringesuponthepublicinterestofStateand

society.However,thepoliticalizationofthelawisaprominentphenomenoninChinese

modernlegislationhistory.Needlesstosay,thecrimeofcounterrevolutionisatypicalexample.

Frommyperspective,crimeofcounterrevolutionwasstipulatedbythestatuteasalegal

concept,butitisnotalegalconceptfromastrictsense.Iamconvincedthatit’smainlya

politicalconcept.Thetermofcounterrevolutionwasproducedduringpoliticalstruggleand

servedfortheauthorities.Asthepoliticalpowerandpoliticalpositioncanbechangedwith

timepassingby.Ithinkcrimesofcounterrevolutionshouldnotbestipulatedbylegislationat

all.Onlywhentherevolutionbecomethecommonpursuitofanera,theonlystandardand

valuejudgmentinsocialbehaviorafterthehigheststandardof"counterrevolutionary"will

crimeofcounterrevolutionbeconstructedasa"evil"ofthelargestandthemostevil"sin".

Secondly,thepurposeofcounterrevolutionisthenecessaryconditionofthecriminallawifthe

caseconstitutesthecrimeofcounterrevolution.Inaddition,thepoliticalattitudesasthe

criminalpurposeandrulesinthepracticeofsubjectivefactoralsolostthecriterionsforthe

conviction.Forinstance,thesamekindofreactionarybehavior,whichcanleadtotwo

distinctlydifferentresults,freefromprisonorsufferingfromheavypenalty.Itgaverisetoa

numberofinjustices.Takeanexample,duringtheCulturalRevolution,about135000people

weresentencedtodeath.Thousandsofpeoplewereburiedunderthechargewithinthe

mixtureoftruthandfalsehood.

Lastly,crimeofcounterrevolutionaryisoneofthechargesoftakingclassstruggleasthekey

link’scriminallaw.Withtheregimestability,economicdevelopmentandsocialharmony,the

chargesofthecrimeofcounterrevolutionaryvalidfor70yearswaseventuallyabolishedin

criminallawin1997.Theforemostreasonofabolishmentisthatthechargedidnotmeetthe

conditions.And"crimeofcounterrevolution"wasofficiallyrenamedto"crimeofendangering

nationalsecurity"bythenewCriminalCode.Twoyearslater,theword"counterrevolutionary"

24

wasremovedthoroughlyintheconstitutionofthePeople'sRepublicofChina.Moreover,crime

ofendangeringnationalsecuritycanmoreaccuratelyreflecttheessentialcharacteristicsofthis

kindofcrime.Generally,theobjectiveofcounterrevolutionwastooverthrowthedictatorship

oftheproletariatregimeandthesocialistsystem,whichwasagainstcapitalism.Tothe

contrast,crimeofendangeringnationalsecurityisconducivetothepolicyof"onecountry,two

systems".ItfacilitatestheeconomicdevelopmentinHongKong,MacauandTaiwanof

capitalism.Notonlyisitbeneficialtosafeguardnationalindependenceandsovereignty,but

alsototheinternationalcriminaljudicialassistance.

Renaming"Crimeofcounterrevolution"to"crimeofendangeringnationalsecurity"can

effectivelyreduceoreveneliminateindeterminingaccusationwithtoomuchsubjectivityand

arbitrariness,trulyreflectingtheprincipleofalegallyprescribedpunishment.Inaword,"Crime

ofcounterrevolution"renamedto"crimeofendangeringnationalsecurity"isstrictlyinline

withcriminallawtheoryandinevitablerequirementinaccordancewithinternational

conventions,whichistheproductofthedevelopmentofpracticalcircumstancesinour

country.Lastbutnoleast,Chinahasincreasinglybeenimplementingruleoflawinthefieldof

criminallawandfocusingoncriminallaw’sfunctionofprotectionofhumanrights.

AsWendellPhilipsoncesaid,everylawhasnoatomofstrength,asfarasnopublicopinion

supportsit.Withsupportofthepeople,thetenaciousabolishmentofcrimesof

counterrevolutionremainsagreatlandmarkinthehistoryofChina’slegislation,exertinga

profoundinfluenceovercriminaljudicialpractice.

25

RyokoHarada

DuringWorldWarII,Japanesegovernmentmaintainedstrictthoughtcontrolbyestablishing

lawsandmakingpropaganda.AroundWorldWarII,thelawofMaintenanceofthePublic

OrderActwasestablishedtobansocialmovementsdenyingtheideaoftheEmperor's

sovereigntyortheprivateownershipsystem.Also,JapanesepropagandaduringWorldWarII

wasdesignedtoassisttherulinggovernmentofJapanduringthattime.Thesesevere

regulationsforJapanesepeopleandpeopleunderJapanesecolonizationwentagainsthuman

rightsandwasreformedafterJapanlostthewar.Then,presentconstitutionofJapanincluded

contentsforpeopletogetfreefromthiscontrol.

ThelawofmaintenanceofthePublicOrderActwasestablishedin1925,sameas

establishmentofuniversalsuffrage.Atthattime,theJapanesegovernmentdidnotwantto

happenactivationofpolitickingthroughuniversalsuffrage,sothelawwasestablishedwith

GeneralElectionLawwasalawextendingtoallmalesaged25andover.Originallytheaimof

thislawwastooppresstheCommunistPartywhichobjectedtoexistenceofEmperorofJapan

andcapitalism,butexpandedtoanti-governmentmovementanditsideology.InJapan,

propagandawasalsotakenveryseriouslytomaintainNationalGeneralMobilizationsystem

duringWorldWarII.Forexample,speechcontrolandthelawofmovieweremade.Inspeech

control,JapanBroadcastingCorporationwhichisformerNHKwasaonlypublicityorganand

therewerealotofpropagandaincludingarticleswhichpraisethevictoryofJapanandwhile

failurewashighlycensoredinnewspapers,books,andothermedia.Thelawofmoviewas

establishedtomakemovieswhichwasbasedonnationalpolicy.Thegovernmenttriedto

controlJapaneseartistsandartistswhowereanti-governmentwerearrested.“Sayon’sbell”is

amoviewhichwasaremakeofastoryinTaiwan.SayonwhowasAtayalgirl,whichtheyare

onetribeofTaiwaneseaborigines,helpedcarryingtheluggageofherteacherandwent

missing.TheteacherwasaJapanesepolicemaninTaiwanandAtayalstudentsadoredhim.

Thenthismoviewasmadeasamovingstoryandintendedtomakeagoodimpressionof

JapanesecolonizationonTaiwanese.Asaresult,thelawofmaintenanceofthePublicOrder

Actallowpeoplenottocriticizegovernmentandfollowthem.Peoplewasbrainwashed

wronglybypropagandaduringWorldwarII.Afterthewar,MaintenanceofthePublicOrder

Actwasabolished,andgovernmentsaidthattheyreflectedonthiscontrolofthoughtandit

wasviolationsofhumanrights.Moreover,PotsdamDeclarationClause10madebythis

reflection.Therefore,theconstitutionofJapannowacceptsJapanesepeopletofreedomof

speech,religion,thought,themeeting,andtheassociation,andhasbecometorespecthuman

rights.ThesecontentswerenotincludedintheconstitutionbeforetheendofWorldWarII.

Thesecontrolofthought,anditswarethreatstotheJapanesepeopleandpeopleunder

JapanesecolonizationbyJapanesegovernmentseemedmoreingeniousstrategythanany

otherstrategy.Thistellsyouthatwarcanmakelawlawless,becausearoundalmostallwars,

countriesaimnotforhappinessofhumanbutforjustvictoryandimprovetheirpositionduring

theworld,andnowwearetryingtostopitbyourpresentconstitution.However,inJapan,

26

makingoflegislationsaremainlycontrolledbythegovernment,soitmaybeeasyforJapanto

returntoJapanofduringWorldWarII,anditshouldbeafrighteningthingforallofus.

Therefore,Japanesepeoplehavetoinsisttheirrightstotheirgovernment,accordingtothe

constitution.Anonlywaythatcanstopthelawruntolawlessnessisthecontentsofthe

constitutionofJapananditisanidealone,butifwedon’tcareaboutthis,thatnotorious

historymayberepeated.Weshouldprotectthisconstitutionandsharethecontentswith

foreignpeoplenottocauseanewwar.

27

AyanoGoto

Warmakespeoplecrazy.Youcaneasilyunderstandthatbycarefullylookingintothelawsthat

werelegislatedduringthewarperiod.Leadersmademanynotoriouslawstoeliminatepeople

whoopposetotheauthority.Bytakingpeople’s“freedom”,(suppressingthepeoples’

thoughts,makingsurenottoexpressit,restrictingtheirmovementsandsoon)leaders

becametyrannical,high-handedanddespotic.Asaresult,duringthewar,noonecouldsay

anythingtotheauthorityandmanypeoplesacrificedtheirlives“forthenation”.Ofcourse,the

waritselfshouldbecriticizedtoo,butIthinkthebadlawsthatwerehiddeninthebackside,

are“therootofallevil”.Fromthisawarenessofissues,Iwouldliketointroduceonenotorious

lawinJapan.

InJapan,1925,the“PeacePreservationLaw”(Japanesename“Chian-ijiHou”)wasestablished.

Thislawsays“Peoplewhoorganizesagrouporjoinagroupwhichhasthethoughtoftheleftwingandaretryingtorebeltheauthority,willbeputinjailformax10years.”Atthesametime

in1925anormal“electionlaw”waslegislatedtoo.Thislawadmittedelectionrightstoallmen

andwomenwhoseageisolderthan20.Thismeansthat,insteadofbeingkindtothepeople

forgivingthemelectionrights,thenationgaveseverepunishmentwhoopposetothe

authority.The“PeacePreservationLaw”waslegislatedbecauseoftheRussianrevolution

(1917).BecausetheCapitalismsociety(includingJapan)hadahugegapbetweenthepoorand

therich,peoplebegantoadmireanequalsociety,whicheveryonehadalmostthesame

amountofmoney,workandhappiness.AndthebestexamplewastheCommunistsocietylike

Russia.Unlikethepeople,theauthoritythoughtthatcommunistsocietyisdangerousbecause

thenationknewthedetailoftheRussianrevolution.TheJapanesegovernmentalsoknewthe

detailoftherevolutiontoo,sotheythoughtthatsuppressingthethoughtofcommunistand

dissolvethe“Japanesecommunistparty”wouldbeamust.In1928,the”PeacePreservation

law”wasamendedandpunishmentsbecamesevere.Thepunishmentwasextendedto“more

than5yearsorimprisonmentforlifeormax,deathpenalty.”In1941,thelawbecameeven

moresevere.A“preventedpunishment(peoplewhoarepredictedtorebeltheauthoritywillalsobeputinprisontoo.)”wassettoo.Thismeansthateventhoughapersondidnothing,but

thegovernmentthoughthewilldosomething,theycaneasilyputhimintojail.Becauseofthis

severelaw,fewthousandpeoplewerearrestedandmanypeoplechangedtheiridea”fromleft

totheright.”However,someeager“leftwing”activistdidn’tbendtheirthoughtsandtriedto

expressit.OnefamouswriterTajikiKobayashiwastorturedandkilledbrutally.65peoplewere

killedinthesamewaytoo,and75681peoplewerearrestedbythislaw.Asyoucansee,laws

caneasilybeamendedtoawrongdirectionandtheinfluenceishuge.This“PeacePreservation

Law”isonebadexamplethatledJapantoaruin.

Byunderstandingthisfact,Istronglythoughtagainthat“freedom”isamust.Ofcourse,we

needsomerestrictiontosomeextentbecauseweneedtomaintainthepublicorder.However,

thatdoesn’tmeanthatleaderscanrestricteverythingandcontrolpeople’swholelife.AsIama

lawstudent,Ithinkthatlawsshallnotbeusedtooppresspeople,buthelppeopleliveinpeace

28

forever.

29

ActontheProtectionofSpeciallyDesignatedSecrets YusukeYamazaki

WhyIchosethisactisthatitwassocontroversialwhenthegovernmentattemptedto

establishbutnevertheless,thisisinevitable,nowpeopleseemtoforgetit.Thisissohazardous

becausethisactcanbebadlaw.Wemightbeabletoreminditsriskwhenitistoolate.We

havetothinkagainaboutthisactanddosomethingtopreventournationfromtakingthe

wrongway.

ReferringtotheprovisionofActontheProtectionofSpeciallyDesignatedSecrets,thepurpose

ofthelawistokeepussafebyconcealingfromterroriststhesignificantinformationrelatingto

thesecurity,diplomacyorterrorism.Ithinktherearemainlythreekeyproblems.Firstoneis

thatourrighttoaccessinformationcanbeneglectedbythegovernmentaswhatthesecretis

isdesignatedbytheMinisterofDefense,theMinisterofForeignAffairsortheCommissionerof

theNationalPoliceAgencywhoisundercontrolbythecabinetandtheycanbemadeto

designateassecrettheinformationwhichhasabadinfluence.Additionary,theydon'thave

dutytoletthepeopleknowwhatmatterisconcealedsowedon'thavechancestocheckifthe

functionsworkcorrectly.Totheseconcerns,thegovernmentstatethattheoutside

organizationscheckthevalidityofthedesignationhowever,theyhaverelationwiththe

governments.Thereisalsoanotherfault.Iftheofficerwhodesignatethesecretsdidn'thave

enoughknowledgeorunderstandingtheimportantinformationwhichshouldbesecretmaybe

leakedandabusedtoattackJapan.Sowecansaythatthissystemhasthecrucialfaults.

Secondly,whensomeonedosomethingagainstthelaw,regardlessofthefactheorsheis

publicornot,theonecanispunishedanditssentencecanbeheavy.Thismeansthatthe

governmentcanarrestandeliminatethepeoplewhostandinthewayofthem.Last,judging

theaptitudeforthesecretchecker,thespheretobecheckedoveracandidateincludesthe

closepeoplelikefriendsorfamily,whichcaninvadetheirprivacy.Ontheotherhand,thisact

hasseveralsignificantmerits.UntilnowJapanhasnotstrongrulestoprotectsecretsandthis

actmightrealizethesecurityofJapanunderthestrictregulation.Andtheallianceswithother

countrieswillbemoretightbecausethestrictsecurityofthecountryletothercountrybelieve

her.Thisleadstotheeasinessforimmediatesharingimportantmatterswhichissousefulfor

anemergency.Forexample,inaccidentatanuclearpowergenerationplantinJapan,the

governmentmighthavelessenedthedamagethroughthequickexchanginginformation

betweenothercountrieswhocouldhelpus.

Astheabovesuggests,thisacthaspositivesideandriskysidebutthelatterseemstohavetoo

muchnegativeinfluences.Inmyopinion,theacttoprotectinformationisindispensablebutin

thiscase,theprocesshastoomanyfaultsandshouldbeimproved.Additonarytheaggressive

waytopassthebillbytherulingpartyistoblameastheyneglectedthepublicopinionentirely.

Nowwemustinvolveourselvestopoliticstopreventtheriseoftyrannybeforeit'stoolate.

30

MaiMoriyama

In1917,theRussianRevolutionbrokeoutandcommunismstartedtospreadalloverthe

world.Forthefearagainstcommunism,JapanesegovernmentenforcedTheMaintenanceof

thePublicOrderActin1925.Thislawwasestablishedinordertocontrolandregulate

communistswhoschemedtoabolishprivatepropertysystemandchangetheemperorsystem

inJapan.InthosedaysbecauseoftheTaisho-democracy,labormovementandpeasant

movementbecameactive.Riceriotsbrokeoutandpartypoliticsbegan.Therefore,popular

electionsystemstartedin1925andTheMaintenanceofthePublicOrderActwasalso

introducedinthesameyear.Indeed,someofcommunistplottooverthrowthenation,

oppressingthemareoneofthewaystokeepnationstable.Iamsurethatthelawwas

necessarytokeepthesocietysafe.However,Ihaveotheridea;thegovernmentshouldnot

havenamedthelawas“TheMaintenanceofthePublicOrderAct”.Theyshouldhavenamedit

as“Communismsuppressinglaw”.ThereasonisbecauseIthinkthelawitselfwasnotsucha

badidea,butstretchedinterpretationofitcausedterriblesituation.Duetothestretched

interpretationin1928,approximately1600peoplewerearrestedandmaximumpunishment

wasthedeathpenalty.Alsoin1941whenthePacificWarwastobegin,peoplewerearrested

onlybecausetheydidnotfollowthepolicy.Itisclearthatnotallofthosewhowerearrested

werecommunist.

Inanysociety,weestablishmanykindsoflawsandfollowthem.Therefore,scopeof

applicationisveryimportant.Inthiscase,thecoverageofTheMaintenanceofthePublicOrder

Actwasnotappropriate.Itwastoowideduetothenameofthelaw.So,greatnumbersof

peoplewerearrestedorevendied.Whatwecansayisthatweshouldpaymoreattentionto

thecoverageofthelaw.

Thesedays,rightofcollectiveself-defensehaveattractedpublicattentionandwehavea

discussionoverinterpretationagainstthearticle9ofconstitution.Ifweexpandthedefinition

inordertostrengthentheJapan-U.S.alliance,theSelf-DefenseForcesofJapanwillbeableto

usemilitaryforceinforeigncountries.Asforthismatter,theyeasandnaysaredivided,butwe

shouldthinkaboutthePacificWarandremindofatomicbombwhichweredroppedon

HiroshimaandNagasaki.Weshouldnotforgetthefact.NatsukiYasuda,aphotojournalistonce

wroteherexperienceonherFacebook.

Iwasasked“Whereareyoufrom?”byJordanianattherefugeecampinJordan.WhenI

answered“I’mfromJapan”,Iwasofferedmyhand.Theysaid“Wewelcomethecountrythat

doesn’tattackus.”Atthattime,Icametorealizewhatourstrongpointisagain.

WhenIwastalkingwithSyrian,HiroshimaandNagasakioftenbecametopic.Theysaid”We

respectJapanbecauseyoubuiltsuchapeacefulcountryafterbeingdestroyedduringthe

Pacificwar.WewanttomakeasnicecountryasJapanafterthiswar”.

Hearingthis,Ifeltguilty.IsthereapeaceinJapan,whichwecanbeproudofnow?”

31

Weshouldn’trepeatthesamemistake.Historyrepeats,butwecanchangethefutureby

establishinggoodandproperlaws.Whatweshoulddoistoknowtherealityandpayalittle

moreattentionagainstscopeofapplicationoflaws.