We're back from Singapore where we (Barbara and I) taught in the NYU LL.M. program based at (and in partnership with) the National University of Singapore. Students come from all over the world. In four years, 67 countries have been represented. You can have seven or eight nationalities in your class. Barbara taught legal ethics to 39 students this year. I taught the First Amendment to nine.
In either course, one often hears from students from Asian countries about the Asian way, Put most starkly, and probably not precisely, the Asian (or Confucian) way is to put the good of the community at a higher level in a clash with individual interests than westerners (or at least Americans) do.
So a conflict between the interests of the individual and the common good will sometimes be resolved in favor of the latter over the former, whereas in the US and other western nations, it would not.
Incidentally, we were told that this explains why Asians put the family name first and the individual's name last. So I'm Gillers Stephen because my family is more important than I am.
This communitarian ethic plays out in the area of free speech in a much lower (effectively, no) tolerance for hate speech. Hate speech protected here would be criminal in Singapore. In the 1960s, in the country's early years, there was much violence among the disparate groups in Singapore, which is predominantly ethnic Chinese but with many ethnic Indian and Malay citizens. The ban on hate speech, which is deemed seditious, responds to that history.
We share a common law system (thanks to the British) but theirs is less adversarial in keeping with the Confucian way.
This is not a love letter to the Asian way or for Singapore's legal system. Its civil adjudication system happens to be highly regarded. And the country is among the lowest in corruption and highest in transparency worldwide. But it still imposes hanging, sometimes mandatory, for non-homicides (armed robbery, certain drug offenses).
This is, however, a reminder that it is good to come face to face with a dramatically different perspective on the relationship between the individual and the community (or the state, if you prefer). Or as a wise man once told me: We should always question first premises even if we end up reaffirming them. That lesson holds in legal ethics, too.
One thing more: You can chew gum on the street in Singapore, but you can't spit it out or otherwise discard litter. The penalty if you do, regularly enforced, is community service (like picking up litter) while wearing a vest or shirt proclaiming your malefaction. In other words, shaming. This is another example of the determination to underscore the interests of the community over the convenience (in this case) of the individual. Singapore is, by the way, the cleanest modern city I've ever seen.
Recent Comments