Abstract
Staying in Singapore is like visiting Disneyland, with a catch: Imagine indulging in the world’s most magical place, but Jeffrey Katzenberg gives you a walloping if you cut in line. Deploying this self-described “winning formula,” Singapore quickly rose to prosperity. Admirers and critics mutually note Singapore’s cleanliness, safety, and efficiency. Empirical metrics suggest these accolades are not anecdotal: Singapore scores at the top of global development indexes, boasts a low crime rate and high judicial clearance rate, has comprehensive infrastructure, clean public facilities and streets, and more. Singapore’s governance is rightly credited for its prosperous outcomes. However, it also invites controversy. Power is illiberally and unapologetically centralized in a single party; it scrupulously governs through state interventionism to serve communitarian values and interests (i.e., the multiracial Singaporean community) above the individual’s. Singapore’s severely punitive criminal and sentencing law, policy, and practice embody this approach. It also exemplifies an ideological divide between “Eastern” and “Western” thought: how we weigh individual liberties against community welfare and whether we characterize society as a unique, holistic unit or sum of individuals. Singapore’s autocratic political approach and so-called draconian practices are regularly attacked for allegedly breaching international human rights standards. These critiques may be well-intentioned but, as often stands, are not particularly useful or fair. Its perceived objectionable practices must be understood and evaluated as individual threads in a holistic tapestry of laws and history. This article’s foremost emphasis is reviewing Singaporean sentencing law, policy, and practice with this aerial perspective. Revealed is a meticulously designed sentencing apparatus that serves unique Singaporean interests and justifies itself with good outcomes. Western sentencing thought differs; the individual’s position is more central to its justification. Non-surgical removal of Singapore’s appraised formula carries unknown consequences. Therefore, strengthening common critiques of Singaporean sentencing would require (1) a rejection of moral relativism to sentencing—that it would be objectively moral to stifle or jeopardize prosperity for particular human rights or liberties, with or without the constituency’s approval, or (2) that such rights carry superior policy justifications.
Recommended Citation
Brolin, Lucas
(2025)
"Punishment in “Disneyland”: A Magical Review of Singaporean Sentencing Law, Policy & Practice,"
Notre Dame Journal of International & Comparative Law: Vol. 15:
Iss.
2, Article 6.
Available at:
https://scholarship.law.nd.edu/ndjicl/vol15/iss2/6