Enforcement the weak link in rule of law
THE recent events at the Seafield Sri Maha Mariamman Temple have had people on both sides of the fence of this dispute pointing an accusing finger at one another.
While people are choosing sides, I believe that there is one party that has been overlooked and must share some blame in the lead-up to the events that have unfolded thus far. That culpable party is law enforcement.
At a press conference recently, our prime minister pointed out that our country’s judiciary has three layers of courts. He has also often raised the issue of the importance of the rule of law, once saying that “If we do not recognise the rules or laws, then we cannot claim that we are a civilised nation.”
But what good is it to have three layers of courts and to say that we should respect the rule of law if we have recalcitrant parties who do not obey the courts and the courts are unable to enforce its rulings?
The Judiciary can only pass judgement over a case based on the statutes of the law. It has no means of enforcing its rulings. The duty of enforcement falls under the purview of the Executive branch of government.
If indeed the developer or its agent had to hire thugs to enforce that ruling, then this obviously shows poor judgement on the part of the developer or its agent. But more significantly, this speaks poorly of our country’s system of enforcing court rulings.
The government should therefore ensure that there is an ironclad system of law enforcement that instils fear and respect for the rule of law in people. The government must let people know that not respecting the law can have dire consequences and that the law will be enforced strictly. This would, in turn, give law-abiding citizens confidence in the rule of law and not feel that the law is a paper tiger.
Perhaps the government can consider setting up a separate department responsible for ensuring that court rulings are carried through. After all, the law without the power of enforcement is akin to a dog that is all bark and no bite.