Views on CJ Yong
-
Double post.
-
Originally posted by Atobe:
Well and good, Atobe, but still, with so little separation between the court and the government, I would propose that the more appropriate Latin phrase to be "Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?".
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:
[b]Primus Inter Pares:
Is the Singapore Judiciary First Among Equals ?
http://www.lawgazette.com.sg/2001-3/Mac01-feature.htm
[/b] -
I do agree we need to separate the three powers of govt. adminstration so as to avoid, prevent or reduce the abuse of powers of either three.
The US system is a good example- and it also has its own type of abuse. But I wouldn't mind considering their type of separation of power..but one different twist.
1) Instead of the Prime Minister nominating a Supreme Court Justice whenever any judge retires, resigns or dies, it would be a selection by a board made up of top senior local lawyers. The existing board of Supreme Court Justices will then make its evaluations and approve or disprove of the nominated candiate.
2) Like in the US, instead of concentrating all powers in one power, there would be a board of 10 Justices and one Chief Justice. This board will make decisions in major criminal cases and top civil cases. In addition, this board of Supreme Court Justices will also make judgements in any ISA or defamation suits or even corruption cases involving politicians so to ensure that there's no abuse of power by members of either the exceutive side or the leglastive(sp) side.
3) Like all any other appointments of any Justices in this board, the process must be transparent and clear. It's hoped that through checks and balances that any judge which is appointed has no or very little biased feelings towards a certain political power. Even if he has some feelings, he must know that he cannot, in any way, show some 'kindness' whenever any judgement is passed to any member of the party he has supported before. -
Who.. indeed...Originally posted by Gedanken:Well and good, Atobe, but still, with so little separation between the court and the government, I would propose that the more appropriate Latin phrase to be "Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?".
-
CJ is sick...and dying..
-
That's rather lame. He's in the pink of health even for his age. It's just whether he still possesses the metal capacity to make sound and unbiased judgement.Originally posted by contrast:CJ is sick...and dying..
The recent upping of the two commandos sentence was not so much a surprise but rather the comments he made raised more than a few eyebrows. -
How are judges appointed? In the United States, confirmation of the President's nominees to the federal judiciary by the United States Senate is required. In many of the states, judges must be directly elected or at least periodically be subjected to elections where there is no opponents. But if voters express their disapproval, the judge cannot continue in office.
The judges for the High Court and Court of Appeal in New Zealand are appointed by the Governor-General on the nomination of the Attorney-General. The custom is that the Attorney-General mentions these appointments after he or she has determined them at Cabinet. The Attorney-General usually consults with the President of the law society, the Chief Justice, the President of the Court of Appeal and the Solicitor-General.
Should there be a formal screening mechanism when appointing Chief Justices' in Singapore? Should the public have a say in their retention? What qualities do you look for in a perspective judge? Would it make any difference if he or she had been convicted of an offence such as a driving offence? These issues go to the heart of the integrity of the justice system and the test of public confidence in the administration of justice. -
Who, indeed ?Originally posted by Gedanken:Well and good, Atobe, but still, with so little separation between the court and the government, I would propose that the more appropriate Latin phrase to be "Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?".
I guess the biggest failures in MM LKY's legacy is the lack of any institution, or institutional procedures, that can independently function on its own in the selection process of leaders for the various positions of Government - WITHOUT him poking his finger, or having a say, or influencing the outcome.
Be it the choice of candidate for the Elected Presidency, or for the CJ position, and perhaps the Commissioner of Police, as well as the Chief of Defense Force, let alone the nominee for the Prime Minister's post - including the investments in creating a National Zoo, Bird Park, Sentosa Island, and even a Night Safari - every aspect of Government Policy and decision has MM LKY's fingerprints all over it - (Read his memoirs about the necessity of any leader to be able to perform multi-tasks, and putting potential leaders in a pressure cooker environment - similar to training US astronauts for space missions).
Now that he is supposed to be in semi-retirement, LKY is still being kept informed, and seems to be keeping an eye despite LHL being at the helm.
LHL has been groomed to be as omni-potent as LKY, but unfortunately his brush with cancer prevent him from being completely one.
However, someone's creativity came to his rescue - to overcome his handicap by having a support staff of SIX "Ministers-WITHOUT-Porfolio" in the Prime Minister's Office - (resulting in a Cabinet with the most number of Ministers, and Ministers-Without-Portfolio).
This process of grooming a leader can be seen from previous press report in the early 1990s when LHL - being the Minister of Trade and Industries - had opposed the Sentosa Development Board of Directors decision to upgrade the dated and "toy-like" Monorail System into a full fledge LRT of sort, and having the monorail extended from Sentosa onto the main island of Singapore.
The "brilliant counter" proposal from LHL was to have the lumbering SBS buses driven across a causeway into the narrow streets built by the British during the 1940s, on an island that was once called "Pulau Blakang Mati", and with this ignominous name being changed to "Sentosa".
The question asked then was "Why should LHL interfere and over-ride the decision of those experienced persons selected to be on the Board of Directors to run Sentosa Island, all of whom probably had a keener sense of business acumen in their decision to upgrade the Monorail as part of the overall plan to increase visitor attendance at Sentosa?"
Ten years later, in 2004, it was announced that a completely new Monorail System is to be introduced, and will be connecting Sentosa with the main island of Singapore.
It seems that the earlier decision of those keen-eyed Directors, appointed to the Board of Sentosa Development Corporation, is now vindicated.
Someone should have asked this question: "Could the sliding visitor numbers to Sentosa over the last ten years be arrested, if we had gone ahead in the early 1990s with the decision to reinvest in a new Monorail System? "
Without any institutions that can be "Politically Blind" and which can act independently for the supreme interest of Singapore, can Singapore ever have the X-Factor in anything or everything that is being done ?
Who should we blame for the absence of the X-Factor, when all planning is always being overseen and guided by the unseen hands and mind of ONE, who claim "supreme omnipotence" in the ownership of Singapore and her Future that "even in his grave, he will rise up to raise hell for the interest of Singapore" ?
Regretably, your question itself is begging for an answer which hardly can be satisfactorily responded under the present circumstances. -
Ppl seem to have a -ve view on him in appeal cases...
But, those ppl that want to appeal have to think twice... Waste ppl's time if they are gulity... -
Some of them may not even have been guilty in the first place. Their cases may even have been thrown out of the court if it happened in UK.Originally posted by sbst275:Ppl seem to have a -ve view on him in appeal cases...
But, those ppl that want to appeal have to think twice... Waste ppl's time if they are gulity... -
Of course got some need to appeal like the carpenter's son that one...Originally posted by iveco:Some of them may not even have been guilty in the first place. Their cases may even have been thrown out of the court if it happened in UK.
The 2 SAF officer that one still wanna appeal? -
Isn't it so obvious, for all Singaporeans to see, that our country's fate and direction is decided by one person only. The rest of the cast are mere puppets on the stage.
Our Dear Leader!
Did you see him in the Mao Tse Tung jacket recently?
I thought my eyes were playing tricks on me when I first saw that picture in the papers. -
Prominent community leader S Moganaruban's jail sentence has been increased from 16 months to 26 months following his appeal in the High Court.
He had been sentenced earlier to 16 months' jail for his role in an insurance scam in the 1980s.
The 53-year-old businessman was found guilty on three charges of cheating and one charge of giving false evidence under oath.
He had instigated his sister-in-law to fake his brother's death 16 years ago to claim insurance money. - CNA /ch -
Originally posted by Atobe:
. Singaporeans have a high level of confidence in the effectiveness and fairness of their judiciary???
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:
[b]Primus Inter Pares:
Is the Singapore Judiciary First Among Equals ?
http://www.lawgazette.com.sg/2001-3/Mac01-feature.htm
[/b]
-
Originally posted by oldbreadstinks:
Most Singaporeans - with the exception of those in Politics AND run foul against the Ruling Party - will have some degree of confidence in the EFFECTIVENESS of the Judiciary.
. Singaporeans have a high level of confidence in the effectiveness and fairness of their judiciary???
With regards to "FAIRNESS" it will depend on the cases involved - whether it involves a case concerning the interest of the Ruling Party vs the Opposition concerning Politics; or a case of Government vs Private interests on Law; or Government Department vs Private interests on Commercial Contracts; or that of Private vs Private matters.
To be fair, the CJ is to be commended for his high standards of administrative and management skills that has transformed the Judiciary into a modern, efficient, and effective system - that is widely admired by every Judiciary, and envied by the population of our immediate neighbors.
With regards to his "FAIRNESS" - he seem to display a somewhat eccentric and temperamental standard that is unbelievable with his remarks concerning his breakfast that seemed to influence his day in Court, to his sense of humor with regards to how justice is to be serve to those who have pleaded guilty and then decide to appeal against the sentence meted out.
His sense of "FAIRNESS" seems to be questionable with regards to the imposition of Court fees that will have to be payable to all those who seek the services of the Judiciary in attending to the settlement of disputes.
This has resulted in justice being sought by those who can afford the services of the Judiciary.
Can we ever have any independent minded person, who can be politically blind, and have the strength of character to stand up to any political pressures, to sit in a Council or Committee to supervise any or all of the system that govern Singapore ?
In a small island such as Singapore, where one's fortunes is dependent on the Rules and Regulations implemented by the Government, and with little moral or ethics in Politics, can we depend on the Political Parties - that form the Government - to rule Singapore, in the interest of Singapore ? -
You just broadly described the british system.Originally posted by timothytsgsg:I do agree we need to separate the three powers of govt. adminstration so as to avoid, prevent or reduce the abuse of powers of either three.
The US system is a good example- and it also has its own type of abuse. But I wouldn't mind considering their type of separation of power..but one different twist.
1) Instead of the Prime Minister nominating a Supreme Court Justice whenever any judge retires, resigns or dies, it would be a selection by a board made up of top senior local lawyers. The existing board of Supreme Court Justices will then make its evaluations and approve or disprove of the nominated candiate.
2) Like in the US, instead of concentrating all powers in one power, there would be a board of 10 Justices and one Chief Justice. This board will make decisions in major criminal cases and top civil cases. In addition, this board of Supreme Court Justices will also make judgements in any ISA or defamation suits or even corruption cases involving politicians so to ensure that there's no abuse of power by members of either the exceutive side or the leglastive(sp) side.
3) Like all any other appointments of any Justices in this board, the process must be transparent and clear. It's hoped that through checks and balances that any judge which is appointed has no or very little biased feelings towards a certain political power. Even if he has some feelings, he must know that he cannot, in any way, show some 'kindness' whenever any judgement is passed to any member of the party he has supported before. -
There is nothing wrong with appealing. The justice system does not always get things right.Originally posted by sbst275:Of course got some need to appeal like the carpenter's son that one...
The 2 SAF officer that one still wanna appeal? -
C J Yong owes people of Singapore a detailed objective explanation why he cannot do anything to correct the oppressive criminal procedures which currently disallow a suspect or accused right of access to counsel.
The police practically has awesome power to determine what are facts and evidences for their own purposes or agendas.
It is very clear that innocent people may be greatly prejudiced in any case of criminal investigation. It would be a blatant "gulty-till-proven-innocent" travesty of justice for the accused if he is not allowed to defend himself justly should he be innocent. -
Well, why waste ppl's time to appeal when you know you deserved it like the dunking incident?Originally posted by lwflee:There is nothing wrong with appealing. The justice system does not always get things right.