Views on CJ Yong
-
WHat does everyone think of him? I understand soem find him unreasonably harsh when it comes to appeals. ALso he happens to be a good friend of the Lee clan and spent a considerable amount of time with GLCs before becoming CJ.
The way he handled the commandoes' dunking case is the only thing that I agree with. At other times, people who shouldn't even have been convicted got stiffer sentences. Take V S Aiyar, for example. That guy's case wouldn't even go to court if he did what he allegedly did in UK. There had been worse cases involving EPL stars, but they all walked free because the prosecutors had no solid case against them. -
At times he is straight as an arrow. Other times, he's a bit senile - ups sentences big time after prosecution appeals.
Time for him to retire. -
Agreed. Besides he has also undermined the independence of the judicial system by being close to the PAP.
Being CJ has also made him too powerful a person and he has abused his powers in the past. Time for him to go. -
He has shaped the judiciary too close to governmental policies.The role of the CJ is supposed to be the ultimate arbiter of the law of the land.Hencewith he has made certain mistakes.
-
Can someone enlighten me. Can the CJ up sentence without opening a trial or allow the defendent to speak up to defend themselves? Or is it just unique in Singapore?
-
If either the defence or prosecution appeals the sentence, the matter is referred to the court of appeals, in which the CJ sits together with 2 other presiding judges.
They will review the case files and determine if there is any grounds for the appeal. Alternatively, they can increase the sentence if they deem it insufficent. Thus its a gamble for either side should an appeal be lodged.
This appeal only includes existing evidence. If new evidence is introduced, the relevant side can apply for a new trial. It will not go to the courst of appeals. -
the law is never fair though.. thats why u see some ppl in say UK not being charged, but heavily charged in singapore, or why singaore dont see bo liao cases often seen in the US, such as a woman suing her neighbour just becos her dog ran over etc..
CJ Yong, i heard, are very good friends with Lee Kuan Yew.. sat next together at the latter's birthday.. heard this CJ yong also malaysian.. yes, i think he should retire and let someone else takeover asap. -
Some have argued, and IMHO rightfully so, that the courts' rulings in Singapore show that they are not sufficiently independent from the government. Is it CJ Yong's fault? Maybe, maybe not. He can simply say he was doing his job. Then again, that was a line often used at Nuremberg.
It's things like his comments on the drowning case that open the question on his fitness to judge. He said that Pandiaraj and Bala "enjoyed" the dunking session. Is he a judge, a psychologist or a clairvoyant? One would imagine a CJ would be circumspect in making his comments - he's sitting behind a bench, not standing behind a pulpit.
I can't say I disagree with all of CJ Yong's rulings - I personally feel that the tough stance he took on road rage was what was needed, for instance. However, overall, I can't say that his judgements are such that I would take them to be correct as a default position either. It may not be a realistic expectation, but I'd personally like a CJ who inspires my confidence by making more judgements that make me go, "All right!" than those that make me say, "WTF?!". -
singapore courts recently even say their system too good.. Queen's Counsel from London is not needed, not welcome
-
Too good that some people committed offences and get away with light sentence or escape from being charged are those whom they have done so called '' past contribution to soceity, charities & etc.Originally posted by 105090:singapore courts recently even say their system too good.. Queen's Counsel from London is not needed, not welcome
So... those people that have not done the so called '' past contribution to soceity, charities & etc will have to face stiff punishment. This is Singapore ''democratic society????????!!!!!!!
'' -
uniquely singapore!Originally posted by Agressor:Can someone enlighten me. Can the CJ up sentence without opening a trial or allow the defendent to speak up to defend themselves? Or is it just unique in Singapore? -
Why he was made CJ in the first place, anyone knows? There were high court judges back then who'd been judges for years, some very possibly respected lawyers for even more years before becoming judges, and none of them qualified to be CJ?
-
many lawyers (even those who dun like CJ Yong) agrees that the biggest contribution he made was to speed up the judicial system . After he took over, he cleared quite a lot of back log cases.. The period of waiting for the first hearing has shorten considerably ( altho the way he did it, is *ahem*.. debatable
) -
MM LKY was the person who approved of YPH as the CJ, after the other one went into retirement after passing late 70s.Originally posted by miss_soojung:Why he was made CJ in the first place, anyone knows? There were high court judges back then who'd been judges for years, some very possibly respected lawyers for even more years before becoming judges, and none of them qualified to be CJ?
The present CJ was a banker at OCBC - serving as CEO prior to being called to the bench.
Before being made a CJ, he was recruited to serve as a High Court Judge for a short period so as to brush up his law - (it seems that he was trained as a lawyer, but decided to go into banking).
This is one of the weirdest fast track career for any lawyer to become a CJ, after departing from the legal fraternity to be in the banking sector.
The seemingly shortage of brains and talents in Singapore has resulted in the dependence of only those that is known to MM.
His harsh decision to up the sentence of anyone who dare to appeal, after being convicted by a Lower Court, stem from his stated view that anyone who appeal the sentence is wasting the court's time.
If CJ is seen to be weird, one can only look at the design of the new Supreme Court building, which he personally picked from a few submissions and approved this weird design of a huge and outsize circular disk sitting on top of the block.
Anyone care to psycho analyse ? -
Originally posted by LazerLordz:
He remembered the hand that fed him.
He has shaped the judiciary too close to governmental policies.The role of the CJ is supposed to be the ultimate arbiter of the law of the land.Hencewith he has made certain mistakes. -
I think he is the son of Yong Shook Lin, founder of Shook Lin & Bok law firm. THere is a street in Petaling Jaya named after Yong Shook Lin. It is where the municipal chambers are located.Originally posted by 105090:CJ Yong, i heard, are very good friends with Lee Kuan Yew.. sat next together at the latter's birthday.. heard this CJ yong also malaysian.. yes, i think he should retire and let someone else takeover asap. -
Originally posted by Atobe:MM LKY was the person who approved of YPH as the CJ, after the other one went into retirement after passing late 70s.
The present CJ was a banker at OCBC - serving as CEO prior to being called to the bench.
Before being made a CJ, he was recruited to serve as a High Court Judge for a short period so as to brush up his law - (it seems that he was trained as a lawyer, but decided to go into banking).
This is one of the weirdest fast track career for any lawyer to become a CJ, after departing from the legal fraternity to be in the banking sector.
The seemingly shortage of brains and talents in Singapore has resulted in the dependence of only those that is known to MM.
His harsh decision to up the sentence of anyone who dare to appeal, after being convicted by a Lower Court, stem from his stated view that anyone who appeal the sentence is wasting the court's time.
If The Chief Justice Of Singapore had to be chosen from outside the profession, how do they expect Singaporeans to respect the fact that the magistrates and judges are making the right decisions MOST of the time?
Appeals cost money. Before the court of appeal even flips a piece of paper, a $10,000 deposit is required (this excluding other fees). How many people can afford this just "to waste the court's time"?
-
This is essentially an issue of the separation of powers. For the esablishment and maintenance of political liberty the government be divided into three branches, the legislature, the executive and the judiciary. Each branch of the government must be confined to the exercise of its own function and not allowed to enroach upon the functions of other branches. i.e. the judiciary must function independent of the executive.
Furthermore, the persons who compose these three agencies of government must be kept separate and distinct, no individual being allowed to be at the same time a member of more than one branch. In this way each of the branches will be a check to the others and no single group of people will be able to contol the machinery of the state.
The separation of powers is clearly committed to a view of political liberty, an essential part of which is the restraint of governmental power. -
Kym,
You have touched on a fundamental aspect of governments one which will determine finally whether we progress further from here, stagnate or go downhill as a nation.
For the first 40 years in our nation building we are too easy going and accepted the propaganda about needs for pragmatism stuff thereby allowing the executive to assume too much power over the other branches which exist for distinctly important purposes.
We have seen an executive which over time has overly arrogates all the other functions onto itself at the expense of accountability openness and equity.
Our politicians use concepts of meritocracy to entrench its controls and power over the other branches with little regard to their important functions.
In retrospect, we might have missed out creative and enduring benefits to our nation building had these two branches been allowed to function naturally as they should.
By running a more broad-based government participated by all the branches we could have achieved greater efficiency and productivity, creativity through powerful forces and knowledge application from greater openness, honesty, integrity and equity provided by all three branches the executive, legislative and judiciary.
Singapore is still a young country. Up to this point, we have been told we need only great leaderships or getting the best people into government.
Our executive-dominated system cannot quite see anything beyond immediate surpluses or gains of the govering elites to serve its own perceived agendas. We are becoming narrower and narrower in building our nation, Today we are beginning to see inquity and inequality with many social and cultural aspects of nation building overlooked due to lack of checks and balcances which could have been exercised by more effective judiciary or legislative.
The points of views or visions in any policies of government tend to be narrowly conceived to suit the executive' immediate preceived needs and agendas.
We are becoming narrow and divided as a nation with only the elites and rich holding sway while the majority of citizens struggling for three meals despite their contributions over the last 40 years.
This state of our nation building is caused by a strongly empowered executive concentrating all the powers giving little share for proper balancing with legislative or judiciary. The executive practically pushes all decisions into at the legislative chamber and judiciary.
We are accepting such rule because we have not learned from the longer term and enduring values through sharing of hardship and wellbeings equity and justice which can only be effectively ensured by all the branches in our nation building.
Looking at the longer term we should build social cohesions and cultural values in the people through a broader nation building philosophy like what the more matured countries have been doing like USA, UK, Switzerland, Finland, their people value freedoms, rights, equity, fairness, workers' rights, justices and innocent-till-proven guilty principles, observance of the same corporate governance and rule of law by government through checks and balances.
We might not see the woods for the trees as there is very little left of our politicians to lead the thinking or provide the alternative views other than what we have been told by the first-generation autocratic leaders.
History will show no doubt that self-proclaimed leadership abilities being promoted by the executive-dominated system will not build the broad foundation of a country. Executive-oriented system is very vulnerable and shallow a system and it will lead finally to abuses and transgressions of rights, equity and justices in a society.
Without building on a broad-based approach giving due consideration to values, aspirations and accountability there will be contentiousness. We are now going through that phase as citizens are not happy with the lack of proper accountability.
Accountable governance should not be compromised by any expedient policies to suit the rules and beliefs of the governing party. There should be broad-based and mature policies for the good of all from the overall national perspective. Only by involving the broad participation of all will we build a more competitive and enduring society where everyone works. For now a lot need to be done to unravel the past self-serving executive which is making all the decisions and implementations without balancing the needs and aspirations of people as a whole. -
We need a gradual shift of power back to the legislative and the judiciary.But as is often mentioned, which is the pressing need of our leaders today?The long term future of Singapore?Or the survival of the ruling party.
Singapore is only 40 years old.Her instituitions must be given a chance to grow and flourish.We cannot take the chance of having an executive running roughshod over the legislative and judiciary.Our youth cannot withstand such a run-down as we do not have the luxury of existing instituitions to back us up.
Whoever is in power now has the onus to develop the nation's pillars of democracy and accountablility.We cannot play politics with this issue related to national survival.The path is clear.And no one will want Singapore to go down the path of no return, but it is clear that if nothing improves, that will be our destiny. -
The more they state their arrogance in this matter, the deeper they are digging their own graves. CJ and his Justices have accumlated so much power that they believe their system is No.1 It's time someone throw them off their high horses.Originally posted by 105090:singapore courts recently even say their system too good.. Queen's Counsel from London is not needed, not welcome -
In all tyrannical governments, the supreme magistracy or the right both of
making and enforcing the laws is vested in one and the same man or one
and the same body of men and whenever these powers are united
together, there can be no political liberty. -
We need to balance out the negative vibes towards the CJ, by also reading the achievements that he has brought to the Singapore Judiciary with his efficient and clear mind.
Read the following article:
Primus Inter Pares:
Is the Singapore Judiciary First Among Equals ?
http://www.lawgazette.com.sg/2001-3/Mac01-feature.htm -
Some systems of government exhibit a great deal more in the way of separation of powers than our own. In the United States the president as chief executive, the congress as legislator and the supreme court as the most important repository of the judicial power. All perform very different functions and each acts as a check upon the excesses of the others.
Able and ambitious people will be attracted to positions in the various branches of Government. They will all want to do their jobs well, to the limits of the power which resides in the office. Tensions will arise. Those tensions will be healthy because they cause the behaviour of one branch of Government to be modified by the attitudes of others. Power will be spread around and shared. The chance to be free from concentrations of arbitrarily exercised power is increased.
Complete fusion of power tend to make control of the Government by the people impossible and would tend to produce tyrannical government. Governmental power can be made less oppressive by dividing it up between various branches. -
Political Science 101.Originally posted by kym:This is essentially an issue of the separation of powers. For the esablishment and maintenance of political liberty the government be divided into three branches, the legislature, the executive and the judiciary. Each branch of the government must be confined to the exercise of its own function and not allowed to enroach upon the functions of other branches. i.e. the judiciary must function independent of the executive.
Furthermore, the persons who compose these three agencies of government must be kept separate and distinct, no individual being allowed to be at the same time a member of more than one branch. In this way each of the branches will be a check to the others and no single group of people will be able to contol the machinery of the state.
The separation of powers is clearly committed to a view of political liberty, an essential part of which is the restraint of governmental power.
US model.