bold printOriginally posted by robertteh:
It will be nice if we have this kind of court where the judgment will be fair and not swayed by political power.
Mancha
Judges are also people like you and me. I can trust them to do their duty according to their conscience, and of their learning.
Judges are not ordinary people like you and me who could act according to our instinct as they are paid and employed and vested with authority to decide on a verdict according to prescribed rules, conventions, laws and regulations.
Singapore has abolished the jury system otherwise it will still be able to talk about conscience. Once the jury system is abolished, judiciary system is entirely subject to manipulation by the politicians who now de facto is the direct employer who could determine the wellbeing, promotion and transfer and deployment of judges.
Although politicians like to present our judges as independent in practice they are not as can be seen in transfer to judges in the past after a politically motivated defamation case was not adjudged to their favor.
How objective and fair will our judges be in hearing politically motivated defamation suit against oppositions or people who are threats to the government because they are able to tell the truths.
Mancha
Judges hear suits brought up by people. All the defamation suits you refer to are brought up by individuals who feel that their reputation have been put to question by the defendants. Defamation suits are largely private suits, and not political.
Judges may hear cases brought up by the people, they have the power to throw out cases on flimsy ground. Apart from abolition of the conscientious jury system, our politicians over time have increased our police power in interrogating accused so that the politicians through their subordinate police department could have access to all evidences while the accused are being prevented from similar access or reliance on fair evidences found by the police who could also deny the accused of habeas corpus to protect him from wrongful accusations or prove his innocence.
How true is this presumed fairness of the judges in our politically motivated defamation suits against people who criticised the ruling party during or prior to elections ?
Mancha
You cannot defame the government. You can defame individuals. Please get it past you prejudice that the government do not sue. Individuals sue. eg Lee Kuan Yew, Lee Hsien Loong, Goh Chok Tong, even Chee Soon Juan. You get sued for defamation for saying things that are not true against a person, causing him to lose esteem in the eyes of the public.
While it is true that one cannot defame an organization and only individuals being defamed can sue for defamation, there is nothing to stop the court from legalistically proceeding with flimsy politically motivated cases which would have been thrown out in the first instance if brought by ordinary citizens.
For example, if some one provokes another person into exchanges with remarks like "I call you a liar and if you do not sue me, then you are a liar" as has happened in the last election and such a person defamed our leaders and the case goes to court, will our judges throw out the case if it is brought up by our powerful provocative politician? I think you should know what the outcome will be based on past politicially motivated defamation cases where innuendos of the remotest remarks were deemed defamatory even where they were uttered in the heat of electioneering.
Will the judges be able to exercise their judgments fairly, independently and have they done so in the defamation suit against Tan Liang Hong?
Mancha
TLH knows very well that the worst case scenario is that he will be rendered bankrupt. Why did he not stay and fight like JBJ? TLH is up to no good. He is a coward. He could not take the heat and fled the kitchen. Good for us, we don't need a fighter like him.
It is a different issue you are bringing up when you asked why TLH did not stay on to fight his case. In the first place what chance has TLH got if he did try to stay on and fight based on what have already happened in JBJ past defamation cases with our political leaders.
There are many frivolous politically motivated defamation suits which could be dismissed without defendents being called to answer charges as it is more than obvious that the suits were politically motivated or alleged remarks made in the course of justifiable public discussions during heated electioneering?
Mancha
What motivates the (again) individual is not a concern of the court. What concerns the court is "Does the plaintiff have a case?"
Again this mantra: Critise the policy, not insult the person.
You have sought to present a theoretical situation only when in practice judges must look over their shoulders to see what will happen based on past cases if they do not toe the policies as uttered by our politicians.
How objective are the judges in not allowing themselves to be influenced by ministers' prior defence of durai in earlier NKF denials over many issues like the level of reserve and ratio of patients' subsidies and Peanut lady's remark on Durai's salary in this instance?
Mancha
The judges presides over what goes on in court, and take into consideration what is presented in court. He does not, like us, take into consideration what what shown in television in the past and what's in the New Paper or Stomp.
Yes, in theory and according to legal textbook it is true our judges are independent but in practice they have to worry how to decide on a politically motivated defamation case brought against by our powerful politicians.
robertteh you need to be objective lah.
By replying you according to judgments and verdicts in past politically motivated defamation cases, I think I am objective.
