Is our judicairy independent?
-
PM recommends CJ & high court judges.In this sense,how is the judiciary independent?Suppose our PM were recommended by Malaysia PM and appointed by their king,would S'pore govt still be independent?
-
If they are honorable people they will not rule in favour of the people who appointed them but according to the evidence right?Originally posted by PRP:PM recommends CJ & high court judges.In this sense,how is the judicary independent?Suppose our PM were recommended by Malaysia PM and appointed by their king,would S'pore govt still be independent?
Right now in Thailand what happened is that they think that the PM Taksin is using legal means to suppress democracy - sounds familiar? - and so they use what is acceptable under democracy, peaceful protests.
I some times wonder why people in many other countries seem so much more honorable. -
PM recommends then president appoints.Originally posted by PRP:PM recommends CJ & high court judges.In this sense,how is the judicary independent?Suppose our PM were recommended by Malaysia PM and appointed by their king,would S'pore govt still be independent?
It is independant in the sense that once appointed PM cannot sack them.
I find the judiciary here independant. But they tend to rule along with public policy rather than by letters of law. -
Predsident act on the advice of the govt.So it is actually PM appoint judges.Originally posted by Ponders:PM recommends then president appoints.
It is independant in the sense that once appointed PM cannot sack them.
I find the judiciary here independant. But they tend to rule along with public policy rather than by letters of law.
Can CJ sack or demote judges?CJ is appointed by PM. -
If the judicature is independent,judges shouldn't be appointed by PM.It should be an independent body to appoint judges, fix their salaries & etc.
-
THe judiciary in Canberra is more independent than ours. THere is less interference from the ruling party.Originally posted by Ponders:PM recommends then president appoints.
It is independant in the sense that once appointed PM cannot sack them.
I find the judiciary here independant. But they tend to rule along with public policy rather than by letters of law. -
It's the same in the US...the ruling party nominates the judges
-
and who is appoints this independant body?Originally posted by PRP:If the judicature is independent,judges shouldn't be appointed by PM.It should be an independent body to appoint judges, fix their salaries & etc. -
Ya... but once PM appoint the Judge. PM have no say in them already.Originally posted by PRP:Predsident act on the advice of the govt.So it is actually PM appoint judges.
Can CJ sack or demote judges?CJ is appointed by PM.
Sacking or demoting judges is done by a committee within the panel of judges. -
not really... I bielieve it is the Senate, which is made up of members from both parties who does the actual appointing i.e. the The President appoints the Justices, but has to do so with the approval of the Senate.Originally posted by oxford mushroom:It's the same in the US...the ruling party nominates the judges -
so the pm better choose wisely or make sure he got back up plan lorOriginally posted by Ponders:Ya... but once PM appoint the Judge. PM have no say in them already.
Sacking or demoting judges is done by a committee within the panel of judges. -
A comparison to the above extract should be made with the following reports :
Singapore
The Judiciary
Singapore's judicial power is vested in the Supreme Court, consisting of a chief justice and an unspecified number of other judges. All are appointed by the president, acting on the advice of the prime minister. The judiciary functions as the chief guardian of the Constitution through its judicial review of the constitutionality of laws. The Supreme Court of Judicature Act of 1969, and various subsequent acts ensured judicial independence and integrity by providing for the inviolability of judges in the exercise of their duties and for safeguards on their tenure.
The Constitution establishes two levels of courts--the Supreme Court and the subordinate courts. The subordinate courts are the magistrates' courts, trying civil and criminal offenses with maximum penalties of three years' imprisonment or a fine of S$10,000 (for value of the Singapore dollar--see Glossary); the district courts, trying cases with maximum penalties of ten years' imprisonment or a fine of S$50,000; the juvenile courts, for offenders below the age of sixteen; the coroners' courts; and the small claims courts, which hear civil and commercial claims for sums of less than S$2,000. The Supreme Court consisted of the High Court, which has unlimited original jurisdiction in all civil and criminal cases and which tries all cases involving capital punishment; the Court of Appeal, which hears appeals from any judgment of the High Court in civil matters; and the Court of Criminal Appeal, which hears appeals from decisions of the High Court in criminal cases. The final appellate court is the Judicial Committee of Her Majesty's Privy Council in London. According to Article 100 of the Constitution, the president may make arrangements for appeals from the Supreme Court to be heard by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. In May 1989, Parliament abolished the right to appeal to the Privy Council except for criminal cases involving the death sentence and civil cases in which the parties had agreed in writing to such an appeal at the outset. The judicial system reflected British legal practice and traditions, except for trial by jury. Singapore abolished jury trials except for capital offenses in 1959; all jury trials were abolished by the 1969 amendment of the code of criminal procedure.
The chief justice and other judges of the Supreme Court are appointed by the president on the advice of the prime minister. The prime minister, however, is required to consult the chief justice on his recommendations for the Supreme Court. Judges of the subordinate courts are appointed by the president on the advice of the chief justice. Singapore's judges and superior courts repeatedly demonstrated their independence from the government by ruling against the government in cases involving political opponents or civil liberties. The government response in such cases was to amend the law or to pass new laws, but it did not attempt to remove or to intimidate judges. Although internal political struggle in Singapore from the 1950s through the 1980s was often intense, and the ruling government was quite willing to intimidate and imprison its political opponents, it always followed legal forms and procedures.
The attorney general is appointed by the president, on the advice of the prime minister, from persons qualified to become judges of the Supreme Court. A judge may be removed from office only for misbehavior or incapacitation, which must be certified by an independent tribunal. The attorney general, who is assisted by the solicitor general, is the principal legal advisor to the government, serves as the public prosecutor, and is responsible for drafting all legislation. The office of the attorney general, the Attorney General's Chambers, is divided into the legislation, civil, and criminal divisions.
Data as of December 1989
Country Reports on Human Rights Practices - 2001
Released by the Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor (March 4, 2003)
The politics of judicial institutions in Singapore
By Francis T. Seow, former Solicitor-General of Singapore
Defamation in Singapore
Amnesty International - Canada reports - Singapore : Bankrupt opposition leader now faces possible imprisonment
The Privy Council - Findings : Jeyaratnam vs The Singapore Law Society -
Can you in summary try to point out where you want to draw our attention to?Originally posted by Atobe:A comparison to the above extract should be made with the following reports :
You gave us so many long URLs that I dunno what you are trying to illustrate.
Somemore, can you use more updated info and not something from 1989?
There's no more Privy Council. -
Originally posted by Ponders:
The referenced information is to draw attention to the various opinions concerning the independence of the judiciary - over a period of more then 20 years, this debate has never subsided.
Can you in summary try to point out where you want to draw our attention to?
You gave us so many long URLs that I dunno what you are trying to illustrate.
Somemore, can you use more updated info and not something from 1989?
There's no more Privy Council.
It was a sad day when the Privy Council brought attention to the questionable judgement passed against JBJ, and resulted in the Privy Council being relegated to a Colonial Past - when it was initially lauded as a benchmark to measure the competency of the Singapore Judiciary.
With the open admission that Singapore is NOT a liberal democracy, can Singapore have an independent judiciary ?
Singapore is not a liberal democracy, says Goh
March 2005
Singapore : Country Report on Human Rights Practices - 2004
Released by the Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor
- February 26, 2006 -
Exactly...whoever controls the Senate (the Parliament in our case) decidesOriginally posted by pikamaster:not really... I bielieve it is the Senate, which is made up of members from both parties who does the actual appointing i.e. the The President appoints the Justices, but has to do so with the approval of the Senate. -
Singapore cannot be a liberal democracy now. The population is simply not "mature" enough and ready for a more liberal democracy.
But I am confident that we will ultimately be a liberal one.
As for independency of judiciary, as i have said, I see them as an independant institution. Just that the rulings they have made tend to lie with public policy.Originally posted by Atobe:
The referenced information is to draw attention to the various opinions concerning the independence of the judiciary - over a period of more then 20 years, this debate has never subsided.
It was a sad day when the Privy Council brought attention to the questionable judgement passed against JBJ, and resulted in the Privy Council being relegated to a Colonial Past - when it was initially lauded as a benchmark to measure the competency of the Singapore Judiciary.
With the open admission that Singapore is NOT a liberal democracy, can Singapore have an independent judiciary ?
[b]Singapore is not a liberal democracy, says Goh
March 2005
Singapore : Country Report on Human Rights Practices - 2004
Released by the Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor
- February 26, 2006
[/b] -
It the same anywhere... who else would appoint them? the president or ruling party of neighbouring countries? the minority political parties?Originally posted by oxford mushroom:It's the same in the US...the ruling party nominates the judges
Why raise this issue? what can you possibly achieve and suggest otherwise? -
Let's not bring the US into this topic. The balance of power in US consist of 3 party; the president, the congress and the senates. Very different from ours.Originally posted by oxford mushroom:Exactly...whoever controls the Senate (the Parliament in our case) decides
In general, however, oxford mushroom is right that in every nation, the ruling power gets to decides. -
To be mature means to face, and not evade, every fresh crisis that comes.Originally posted by Ponders:Singapore cannot be a liberal democracy now. The population is simply not "mature" enough and ready for a more liberal democracy.
But I am confident that we will ultimately be a liberal one.
Fritz Kunkel
When we were children, we used to think that when we were grown-up we would no longer be vulnerable. But to grow up is to accept vulnerability... To be alive is to be vulnerable.
Madeleine L'Engle (1918 - ), "Walking on Water: Reflections on Faith and Art", 1980
When is ONE deterined to be 'Mature' ?
Can a community of mature people result in a mature population ?
If one must lean towards a certain direction, is that not an indication of a lack of independence ?
As for independency of judiciary, as i have said, I see them as an independant institution. Just that the rulings they have made tend to lie with public policy.
If it were not for injustice, men would not know justice.
Heraclitus (540 BC - 480 BC)
You cannot depend on your eyes when your imagination is out of focus.
Mark Twain (1835 - 1910), A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court -
Singapore opposition leader found guilty of contempt of court
SINGAPORE (AP) -- A Singapore court on Thursday found opposition leader Chee Soon Juan guilty of contempt of court for accusing the city-state's judiciary of lacking independence.
High Court Judge Lai Siu Chiu said Chee was in contempt for making the comments at a Feb. 10 bankruptcy hearing, and for distributing them to the media and posting them on the Web site of the Singapore Democratic Party, of which Chee is secretary-general.
Lai adjourned the hearing until Friday to deliver the sentence.
At the Feb. 10 hearing, the court declared Chee bankrupt after he failed to pay damages owed to two former prime ministers, Lee Kuan Yew and Goh Chok Tong, who successfully sued him for defamation in 2001.
Chee said Singapore's courts were "not independent when it came to dealing with opposition politicians," among other criticisms.
Second Solicitor-General Lee Seiu Kin, acting on behalf of the attorney-general, who applied to have Chee charged with contempt, said Chee had "deliberately set out to undermine public confidence in the Singapore judiciary."
"In alleging that the judiciary is biased against him and other opposition politicians, (Chee) has done a grave injustice to all the members of the judiciary," Lee said. "This action is about ensuring that the judiciary is not to be undermined by such attacks on its independence."
In his defense, Chee said he was only trying to "speak the truth" about the judiciary. He cited as examples previous cases in which opposition leaders were found guilty of defaming politicians from the ruling People's Action Party.
"I cannot, in good conscience, continue to allow it to go unremarked, the dismal state of our judicial system," he said.
Singapore's top government figures have said the defamation lawsuits were necessary to protect their reputations.
Asia1.com -
This will and can only remain a question un-answered.
To find out, be an opposition party and you shall experience the truth. -
What's new?
Nothing ain't going to change as long as the culture up there stays the same. -
one of the reasons why people are migrating..
-
23 AUG 1997
A "FUNDAMENTAL error" had been made in the Tang Liang Hong defamation case earlier this year QC George Carmen told the Singapore High Court, Aug 21. Mr Carmen said this during his submission in the defamation suit by prime minister Goh Chok Tong against Workers' Party leader J. B. Jeyeratnam.
The judge in the Tang case, Justice Chao Hick Tin, had laboured under the impression that it was Mr Jeyaretnam who released the police reports to the press, Mr Carman said.
However, while under oath, on the second day of the trial, Mr Goh told the High Court that it was he who authorised senior minister Lee Kuan Yew to release Mr Tang's police reports.
Mr Carman said the prime minister and Mr Lee, his predecessor, "shot themselves in the foot" by releasing the report over which they are now seeking legal damages.
Mr Carman also accused Mr Goh and his predecessor for ''orchestrating a damage claim when there really hasn't been any damage by (Mr Jeyeratnam). The real loss has been self-inflicted and engineered. This really is standing justice on its head.'' In his written judgment, May 29, Justice Chao said: "The police report was released to the media through the Secretary-General of the WP at a rally that evening..."
Mr Carman said: "That is totally and completely untrue." He demanded that the lawyers for the PAP men explain to the court how the judge had been so "seriously misled".
He added that nowhere in any of their court documents did the plaintiffs mention that it was Mr Goh and Mr Lee who released the police reports, as the Prime Minister had testified on Tuesday. Instead, the documents were drafted carefully to suggest that it was the press which procured the release of the reports.
From the witness box, Mr Goh said that he first read about Mr Tang's plan to file a police report from an interview in The Straits Times. In it, Mr Tang had said that not only was he going to sue Mr Goh and the PAP men, but he would also file police reports against them for defaming him by calling him an anti-Christian Chinese chauvinist.
Mr Goh went on to describe how he had asked Home Affairs Minister Wong Kan Seng to inform him if Mr Tang did file a police report, as he said he would.
On the evening of Jan 1, while attending a PAP rally in Potong Pasir, the report was presented to him about two hours after Mr Tang filed it. A copy was also sent to Senior Minister Lee Kuan Yew, who was attending another PAP rally in Hougang.
At about 9.15 pm, Mr Goh proceeded to the Hougang rally, where he met Mr Lee and exchanged a few words with him about the reports.
"We had to decide what to do with it," he said, noting that at that point of time, Mr Tang had not made public his police reports.
Mr Goh said he saw no need to go public with the reports to benefit Mr Tang's chances at the polls since the WP man would have been seen to have kept his word.
But, he added, after WP chief J. B. Jeyaretnam had made known Mr Tang's lodging of the reports at its party's final election rally that night, he had no choice but to bring the reports out into the open, especially when newspaper journalists began asking for copies of the reports. "If I had not, I would have come across as trying to hide something."
The decision, he said, was made the next day, which was Polling Day. Mr Lee had contacted him to discuss the reports. They spoke for five to 10 minutes, and he authorised Mr Lee to release the reports.
To that, Mr Carman asked: "Did Mr Lee ask 'may I release it? Or 'shall I release it?"' Mr Goh: "No, he said 'should we release it?' I said yes." -
JBJ had also claimed that although an announcement of a 'Police Report' was made, the content of the 'Police Report' was not made known at the Rally on the evening before the LKY 'Public Release' of that Police Report - giving full details of the allegations stated in the Police Report.
'Facts' can be seen as 'Facts' in many different way.
It can be a Fact that you have turned your head to your left; but from my opposite position, I see your head turned to my right is also a fact'.
At the same time I can also say that I saw your eye blinked, which unfortunately you cannot say that as there was no reflective material - (such as a mirror) - to help you see your own eye blinked.
I now control the "Facts" as I see it - can my 'Facts' be a 'Twisted Fact' or a 'LIE' ?
This is 'Third World Politics' for a 'pseudo First World' country.