A conception of a morally neutral political philosophy; Liberalism not morally neutral

During Professor Thio Li-Ann's second lecture for public law, she talked about the competing forms of political ideology that could underlie constitutionalism. One part of the topic was about the possible forms of secularism. In particular liberalism. She distinguish between two types of liberalism, specifically, politcal liberalism and the contemporary strain of philosophical liberalsim. In her words, it is philosophical liberalism which has tyrannical implications as a comprehensive world view masquerading as a 'procedural' or skeletal framework for organizing Man and society. While affecting a value-neutral posture, philosophical liberalism imposes its own value system by stealth while silencing its detractors. As Professor Thio would say, this is illiberal liberalism. In her Christian book, Mind the Gap, Professor Thio states that a political ideology which opposes traditional morality, including Judeo-Christian values, is not neutral.

On the other hand, in the conception of political conception, liberalism is not a comprehensive 'doctrine' which includes "an overall theory of value, an ethical theory, an epistemology, or a controversial metaphysics of the person and society" Rather the goal of liberalism is to "provide a political framework that is neutral between such controversial comprehensive doctrines." In other words, it is a tool to manage conflict between competing world views seeking to influence law and policy. Political liberalism thus claims to be 'neutral' or thin in terms of substantive content, advancing only a few basic principles such as that of the equality of the citizens and their equal right to engage in pubic policy debates. Implicitly, it assumes that all views are morally equal. Liberalism itself apparently contains no mechanism by which to prioritize between competing substantive visions of the good; its default mechanism is to let the individual decide. This provides thin gruel unable to lend much heft to the concept of the common good and the character of the community.

I was wondering whether there could be a form of political philosophy that is more morally neutral is nature. From my legal theory class, I read the debate between Devlin and Hart about the different paradigms that can be used to assess the legislation of morality. Both legal theorist seem to present a morally neutral paradigm for legislating morality. Devlin goes with the notion of popular morality, that is the view of the masses, whilst Hart espoused the ancient utilitarian philosophy as the basis for legislating morality. I wonder whether a strictly utilitarian political philosophy is compatible with Christianity. Perhaps all the moral dogmas in the bible may be justified on utilitarian grounds. I suppose Devlin and Hart's models are not mutually exclusive and when deciding on whether to legislate on a particular issue that is morally controversial, both paradigms would give considerations that can be taken into account. We ask the question of what society thinks, and whether the thing being legislated against is inimical towards society.

Introductory Lecture on Public Law - Professor Thio Li-Ann

The morning introductory lecture on public law was by Professor Thio Li-Ann. She spoke about the role of the constitution in the role of governance. Constitution, she says, serves as a kind of map telling how power is to be distributed. But in the study of constitutional law, it is also important to have a "compass" to tell what the power is to be used for. Constitutional law serves as a limit to the government.

Professor Thio says that the more restrained the government is when exercising power, the less law you need to externally restrain them. There is a relationship between the degree of internal restraint and the need for external restraint. Professor Thio then posed the question, "Should you or should you not trust your government?" That, she said, depends on your view of human nature.

In the view of Confucian idealism, where power is viewed as indivisible and wholly belonging to the emperor, the idea is that political authority is based on personal morality. This restraint is termed as li. Professor Thio said that this notion of good faith is not absent in Singapore constitutionalism. This notion of good governance is not just an Asian conception. The philosopher Plato conceived of the notion of governance by philosopher kings who would rule with wisdom and benevolence. In society where there is a high degree of trust of the government, we can be more comfortable in giving discretion to the government.

This is in contrast to what Professor Thio Li-Ann calls Madisonian Idealism, after the views put forth by James Madison in his paper Federalist No.51, which is an espousal for auxiliary checks to power such as a constitution.

Professor Thio also talked about how political ideologies shape constitutions and have consequences. For example, China's political ideology places centrality of power in the communist party. Article 128 of China's constitution states that the Supreme People's Court is responsible to the National People's Congress and its Standing Committee. This effectively removes the ability of the court to check the power of the communist party if it infringes upon the rights of the people, even if there are more rights described in the chinese constitution than there are in Singapore.

Professor Thio also picked dirt of the western political ideology of liberal democracy, which although gives great freedom, leads to 'hyper-individualism' and rights talk, a litigious society, erosion of personal and social responsibility, coarsening of public discourse, and excessive consumerism, materialism, and commodification.

Professor Thio used the term 'Paternal Democracy' to describe Singapore's political ideology. I suppose this is a reference to the strong one-party rule in Singapore by the People's Action Party (PAP) government, and its top-down approach to governance.

Professor Thio also highlighted another prevailing political ideology in Singapore called Communitarianism, which is a social philosophy that maintains that society should articulate what is good. This is often contrasted with classical liberalism, a philosophical position that holds that each individual should formulate the good on his or her own.

I was quite taken aback to see an excerpt of an interview of Lee Kuan Yew in 1984 which quotes him as saying "it is anathema to Chinese culture that the Emperor’s mandate from heaven should depend on the counting of heads. It depends on the chopping of heads and that mandate was exercised not through a rabble in a legislature but through a strictly quality‐controlled Mandarinate that went through a series of Imperial examinations." To a fairly liberal english-educated Singaporean, I think we are naturally apprehensive of authoritarianism

In my opinion, the ideal government rules by benevolence and is restraint by morality. However, I believe that human beings are fallible in nature and easily corruptible by power. Hence, there must be restraint on their power. But we can and should cultivate a culture that is conducive towards providing internal restraint within government. I do see religion playing such a part in providing guidelines and principles for governance.

Questions:
1. What kind of exam questions will be featured for public law exams? How do I study for it?

Help
1. Trading of muggers (Senior notes).