Is our judicairy independent?

• PRP

  17 Mar 06, 10:43

  WORRY OF OPPOSITION MEMBERS
  
  Suppose you have a legal dispute with someone,the presiding judge is a friend of your opponent.Would u not worry that the judge may not be fair?This is exactly the problem of opposition members who were sued by govt minister faced.The judges was appointed by PM.CJ is a good friend of LKY.
• casino_king

  17 Mar 06, 10:45

  Originally posted by PRP:
  WORRY OF OPPOSITION MEMBERS
  
  [b]Suppose you have a legal dispute with someone,the presiding judge is a friend of your opponent.Would u not worry that the judge may not be fair?This is exactly the problem of opposition members who were sued by govt minister faced.The judges was appointed by PM.CJ is a good friend of LKY.[/b]

  I know that in the US, you can get the judge disqualified and or the judge will disqualify himself/herself. Here can?
• PRP

  17 Mar 06, 10:46

  Originally posted by PRP:

  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?

  The analogy i mentioned above prove that the judicature is not independent.The paliament should improve the system.
• PRP

  17 Mar 06, 10:48

  Originally posted by casino_king:

  I know that in the US, you can get the judge disqualified and or the judge will disqualify himself/herself. Here can?

  Of course,here also can.But the judge can insist not to disqualify himself.U appeal may also come to nought.
• NewAge

  17 Mar 06, 11:47

  Our judiciary are only independant if the matters do not concern ppl in the political scene. However there are always exception. I believe there arer judges who are pure at heart.
• PRP

  20 Mar 06, 16:50

  Yes,there might be judges who are pure at heart.But i am afraid the system might not let them do what they want to do.
• PRP

  20 Mar 06, 16:55

  Trial in foreign courts
  
  I think legal cases between govt (& ministers) & memebers of the opposition should be held in courts of other countries such as Malalsia,Britain or Newzealand.So there wouldn't be any doubt or accusation that the judges who are appointed by PM are biased against the opposition.
• LazerLordz

  20 Mar 06, 17:14

  Originally posted by PRP:

  Yes,there might be judges who are pure at heart.But i am afraid the system might not let them do what they want to do.

  One good example is the mandatory death sentencing policy which takes the power away from the judiciary.
• robertteh

  20 Mar 06, 18:27

  After the past judgmental errors in NKF cases, Tan Liang Hong case and many other political defamation cases, the Chief Justice and judges owe a duty to the people to Singapore to prove that they are indeed above politics and are able to rule indepdently of the any hidden political influence of the party in power.
  
  I for one would have given them high marks for demonstrating such accountable and transparent independence in the latest finding of CSJ' for contempt of court.
  
  They again miss another opportunity to salvage their poor reputation despite all the past NKF errors and the Tan Liang Hong case.
• LazerLordz

  20 Mar 06, 18:53

  Originally posted by robertteh:

  After the past judgmental errors in NKF cases, Tan Liang Hong case and many other political defamation cases, the Chief Justice and judges owe a duty to the people to Singapore to prove that they are indeed above politics and are able to rule indepdently of the any hidden political influence of the party in power.
  
  I for one would have given them high marks for demonstrating such accountable and transparent independence in the latest finding of CSJ' for contempt of court.
  
  They again miss another opportunity to salvage their poor reputation despite all the past NKF errors and the Tan Liang Hong case.

  maybe you are too optimistic.
  
  justice is pro-policy here.
• oxford mushroom

  21 Mar 06, 03:30

  Originally posted by robertteh:

  After the past judgmental errors in NKF cases, Tan Liang Hong case and many other political defamation cases, the Chief Justice and judges owe a duty to the people to Singapore to prove that they are indeed above politics and are able to rule indepdently of the any hidden political influence of the party in power.
  
  I for one would have given them high marks for demonstrating such accountable and transparent independence in the latest finding of CSJ' for contempt of court.
  
  They again miss another opportunity to salvage their poor reputation despite all the past NKF errors and the Tan Liang Hong case.

  But CSJ's remarks were clearly in contempt of court
• BillyBong

  21 Mar 06, 10:47

  Originally posted by oxford mushroom:

  But CSJ's remarks were clearly in contempt of court

  While there is something worth reviewing in his remarks, it will still be deemed half-truths since there is no evidence to back up his claims.
  
  Was it therefore foolish of him to mention that so steadfastly in court? OR was it deliberately orchestrated?
  
  Anyhow, it won't be the first time he's throw into jail...nothing shocks the man anymore.
• Rexdriver

  21 Mar 06, 17:31

  Originally posted by BillyBong:

  While there is something worth reviewing in his remarks, it will still be deemed half-truths since there is no evidence to back up his claims.

  Are you sure there wasn't evidence to back up his claims? I think CSJ alleged that when a judge makes a finding against PAP, the judge is removed from the bench. There is evidence to suggest that this might be true.
• robertteh

  21 Mar 06, 18:02

  Originally posted by oxford mushroom:

  But CSJ's remarks were clearly in contempt of court

  How about looking at the whole case in perspective and allow CSJ to plead his case of justification, political criticism not amounting to personal attacks or statements made in good faith. Did the judges look at all these.
• oxford mushroom

  22 Mar 06, 06:00

  Originally posted by robertteh:

  How about looking at the whole case in perspective and allow CSJ to plead his case of justification, political criticism not amounting to personal attacks or statements made in good faith. Did the judges look at all these.

  In English law, any disobedience or disrespect to the authority or privileges of a legislative body, or interference with the administration of a court of justice constitutes contempt of court. We cannot allow any litigant who is unhappy with the judgment of the court to cast aspersions upon the court, for that would shake the very foundation of civil society.
  
  Sir Eardley-Wilmot, the Lord Chief Justice of common pleas, is widely regarded to have laid down the law on this issue:
  
  "To be impartial, and to be universally thought so, are both absolutely necessary for the giving justice, that free, open and uninterrupted current which it has for many ages found all over this kingdom, and which so eminently distinguishes and exalts it above all nations upon the earth. Again, the constitution has provided very apt and proper remedies for correcting and rectifying the involuntary mistakes of judges, and for punishing and removing them for any perversion of justice. But if their authority is to be trampled on by pamphleteers and news-writers, and the people are to be told that the power given to the judges for their protection is prostituted to their destruction, the court may retain its power some little time, but I ant sure it will eventually lose all its authority.
  
  The object of the discipline enforced by the court by proceedings for contempt of court is not now, if it ever was, to vindicate the personal dignity of the judges or to protect them from insult as individuals, but to vindicate the dignity and authority of the court itself and to prevent acts tending to obstruct the due course of justice..."
• Rexdriver

  22 Mar 06, 09:45

  Contempt of Court, like Defamation, curtails the freedom of speech.
• PRP

  22 Mar 06, 10:45

  Originally posted by robertteh:

  After the past judgmental errors in NKF cases, Tan Liang Hong case and many other political defamation cases, the Chief Justice and judges owe a duty to the people to Singapore to prove that they are indeed above politics and are able to rule indepdently of the any hidden political influence of the party in power.
  
  I for one would have given them high marks for demonstrating such accountable and transparent independence in the latest finding of CSJ' for contempt of court.
  
  They again miss another opportunity to salvage their poor reputation despite all the past NKF errors and the Tan Liang Hong case.

  Well-said!
• PRP

  22 Mar 06, 10:46

  Originally posted by oxford mushroom:

  But CSJ's remarks were clearly in contempt of court

  Explain your reasons to us!
• diggo

  22 Mar 06, 17:01

  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]

  Good analysis and background info... tks Atobe.
  
  The developments through the years are a worrying sign though...
• BillyBong

  22 Mar 06, 19:54

  Originally posted by Rexdriver:

  Are you sure there wasn't evidence to back up his claims? I think CSJ alleged that when a judge makes a finding against PAP, the judge is removed from the bench. There is evidence to suggest that this might be true.

  If there was, CSJ would surely have made a case against the court, citing such examples.
  
  To date, i have not heard of a single JC or presiding judge who has ruled against the PAP in politically-linked cases.
  
  
• oxford mushroom

  23 Mar 06, 03:30

  Originally posted by PRP:

  Explain your reasons to us!

  You did not even read my post...
  
  CSJ made disparaging remarks about the court...legally, that is sufficient to constitute contempt of court. It has nothing to do with his case. You cannot insult the court just because you don't like the judgment.
• LazerLordz

  23 Mar 06, 04:00

  Originally posted by oxford mushroom:

  You did not even read my post...
  
  CSJ made disparaging remarks about the court...legally, that is sufficient to constitute contempt of court. It has nothing to do with his case. You cannot insult the court just because you don't like the judgment.

  What then is the redress if the court is guilty of having a certain bias towards certain groups, butyou are forbidden to outline it because of this clause that says that you may not embarass the court.
  
  What may be technically contempt of the court, i.e embarassment, may be a truthful testimony in itself.
• robertteh

  23 Mar 06, 06:58

  Sorry to jab in. Rule of law should have been more concisely and accountably defined in court before it can administer justice for the benefit of all citizens.
  
  If it is defined, in the constitutions or specific acts of parliament on cases of disputes involving contempts of courts and defamations, everyone will benefit including politicians, judges and the government as follows:-
  
  (1) it will level the unspoken powerful playing field to a more balanced and equitable pro-citizens and pro-democracy mass-participation playing field.
  
  (2) it will prevent self-centredness in running of the country by anyone at the helm in wanting to have his or her hidden power obeyed in the courts or judges.
  
  (3) the judges will be able to dispense justices in courts equitably to all irrespective of power but according to accountable and transparent justice and principle recognised by all men.
  
  (4) the judges do not have to look the other way like in the old NKF defamation suits when they preferred to ignore the whistle blowers' case no matter how strong while influenced by powerful political wishes or policies of the day with patron calling NKF CEO's $600 K salary as peanut etc. We cannot ignore the fact that judges do pay attention to politicians' utterances in public which finally serve as powerful constraints on their decisions. At the earlier time, NKF was riding high and ministers were seen as supporting every thing Durai was doing as Durai was playing to the political agenda of the government namely using the public charity donations and building of larger reserve so as to lessen dependency on use of public fund for kidney treatments.
  
  (5) politicians will not have to slog it out with one another trying to use the court as weapons in unpleasant civil defamation suits to grapple with one another in perpetual power plays.
  
  (6) the judges will not need to serve the unspoken wishes of men at the helm which benefit no one except pride or narrow political agenda of the day. Justice should belong to and be accessible to each and every citizen and not dictated by such powerful influences on judges' mind behind the scene. CSJ or JBJ had no choice but to confront the court due to such poweful forces at work behind judges' mind.
  
  Unspoken powerful political wishes changes according to new situation and new demands e.g. leadership changes and upcoming election so judges also have to read between the line of ministers' speeches so it now know that it is against public conscience to build high reserves while ignoring patient's subsidy or plight and now ruled differently in the new NKF situation so that Durai is now wrong in the NKF/SPH case reversing the previous influences from ministers utterances of the past on the same matter.
  
  This is how the courts have to contend with - unspoken powerful wishes and policies of the power that be.
  
  So it is in the interest of good corporate governance and future of the country to adopt rule of law approach to make every party pay due respect to law as it stands and not have to obey wishes of powerful personages in running of the country.
• cornyfish2000

  23 Mar 06, 08:20

  There are 2 types of judges:
  
  Subordinate Courts Judges (Magistrates, District Court, Coroner's Court, Family Court, Juvenile Court)
  These judges are appointed by the President upon the recommendation of the Chief Justice. They may be promoted within the ranks of the Subordinate Courts (Magistrate -> District Judge -> Senior District Judge) and may be removed at any time, just like any other civil servant.
  
  Supreme Court Justices (High Court, Court of Appeal)
  These people are appointed by the President upon the recommendation of the Prime Minister. They CANNOT be removed from office before their retirement age. In order to remove a sitting Supreme Court Justice, the government will have to pass an Act in Parliament and must fully justify the reasons for the removal to the members of parliament.
  
  This is as far as i understand.
• PRP

  25 Mar 06, 20:49

  CJ's term is extended by a year.Whether he would be further extended at the pleasure of PM?Look like CJ is on contract term.However,he is old already.