A must read for all!!!
-
aaa
-
I am not into the law in Singapore. I read it somewhere that in other countries the legal system is independent, it is not under the control of government, but in Singapore it is different. Is this true?Originally posted by joola74:From: QXP 29/12/2001 01:05
To: Ballistics Poll 27 of 186
12469.27 in reply to 12469.22
I defer to you on your knowledge of the law - I suppose you have studied the subject.
I only studied law as introductory courses to the subject.
>>The severance of appeals to the privy council is especially glaring when you take account of the fact that due to sillypore's short history, 90% of the case law in NUS law faculty still has precedent in English common law and judgements.<<
After Singapore's independence in 1965, Lee Kuan Yew said Singapore should retain the Privy Council as our highest Court of Appeal to give foreign investors the confidence in Singapore's judicial system.
However, after the Privy Council criticised the judgment of our Court of Appeal case involving JB Jeyaratnam, LKY hastily severed the link to the Privy Council.
In the Straits Times of Nov 2, 2001, Lee Kuan Yew was reported to have said: "We need a clear mandate for investors and others to have confidence that this government, when it says it will do something, will do it because it can do it. That's the basis on which we have run this government."
People of Singapore should compare what Lee Kuan Yew said above with the handling of the Asia Pulp & Paper Co., Asia Food Properties and Golden Agri-Resources companies which are all registered in Singapore.
APP has defaulted on its US$12 billion bonds issued to international investors and the prima facie evidence suggests massive fraud.
AFP and Golden Agri-Resources have two PAP MPs as Directors who are members of its audit committee and yet S$624 million of Golden Agri deposits with the Widjaya's wholly owned Cook Island Bank Bll cannot be redeemed.
All this facts have been in the public domain since early this year and yet the Singapore authorities have only just begun to investigate the companys' affairs.
Just to remind people that Lee Kuan Yew's elder brother Dennis Lee Kim Yew was Chairman of UIC at the time the CEO of UIC Oei Hong Leong, who is the son of the elder Widjaya, had to leave UIC after UIC incurred massive losses in trading on the Japanese financial markets.
It is a fact that Oei Hong Leong exceeded the limit set by the Board of Directors of UIC's exposure to the Japanese financial markets and that Oei Hong Leong also traded the same financial markets on his own personal account.
The Asian Wall Street Journal (DEc 12, 2001) had quoted foreign fund managers and analysts as criticising the Singapore government's actions as too little too late.
Is this the way Lee Kuan Yew expect foreign investors to have confidence in Singapore?
>>In short the whole sillypore system is a massive joke and only the local grads themselves have missed the punch line.<<
The current Chief Justice, Yong Pung How, ceased practising law when he was appointed the MD of the Government Investment Corporation of Singapore in 1981. (I don't know when he actually stopped practising law and what he was doing before his appointment at GIC.)
After Lee Kuan Yew, as GIC's Chairman and Goh Keng Swee - I can't remember what his post was - and MD Yong Pung How sold off all of GIC's investments of stocks and bonds in the US at or near the lowest level of the US stock market and the bond market and thus incurred huge losses, Yong Pung How moved over to OCBC as Chairman.
Towards 1989 Lee Kuan Yew appointed Yong Pung How to succeed Wee Chong Jin as CJ, after a couple of years as High Court judge.
I find it strange that Yong Pung How who had stopped practising law can be appointed to the bench to become Singapore's CJ.
Can you tell us what Yong Pung How has accomplished as a lawyer to be elevated to the post of CJ, especially after his disaster at GIC?
What contributions had Yong made to the Singapore society to deserve this post?
Last year two High Court Judges, Warren Khoo and Goh Joon Seng were retired at 65 years old.
Yong Pung How is now 77 years and just had his term as CJ renewed for three years.
Our system is not only a massive joke, it is just a reflection of the bankruptcy of the system.
If it is true that it is under the control of government, the ruling party will do anything to change to suit whatever needs they have. Nothing surprising! Sigh! -
I'm surprised many do not know... I tink i'm aware when me in sec sch leOriginally posted by rane:I am not into the law in Singapore. I read it somewhere that in other countries the legal system is independent, it is not under the control of government, but in Singapore it is different. Is this true?
If it is true that it is under the control of government, the ruling party will do anything to change to suit whatever needs they have. Nothing surprising! Sigh! -
Same here.Originally posted by sunny6110:I'm surprised many do not know... I tink i'm aware when me in sec sch le
You try talking about the Constitution, and people will go "Huh? Kong simi?"
-
So it is for you people who know about it to let those who don't know gain some knowledge. At least, we need to know something about it.Originally posted by LazerLordz:Same here.
You try talking about the Constitution, and people will go "Huh? Kong simi?" -
this is a very misinformed article, i doubt all the judges are under the ruling of the parliament house, if that is the case, don't you think, all the government agency would be able to win all the case without a fight?
-
This article smells like nepotism. Or is it meritocracy?
-
the ruling party don't hold the hands of the judges all the time, and they don't put their hands in every case, whether case involves government agency or not.Originally posted by allentyb:this is a very misinformed article, i doubt all the judges are under the ruling of the parliament house, if that is the case, don't you think, all the government agency would be able to win all the case without a fight?
The question is, when the court needs to be independent, in deciding against the wishes of the ruling party, such as that involves political opponents of LKY, can they be independent? do they have to seek the opinion of the ruling party, or if the ruling party says no, can they go ahead.
in case against JBJ, it does seem part of the original system was removed to suit the local condition.
-
If you bothered to read past history, can you even name a case where someone wins against a Govt agency?Originally posted by allentyb:this is a very misinformed article, i doubt all the judges are under the ruling of the parliament house, if that is the case, don't you think, all the government agency would be able to win all the case without a fight?
Not least that the Govt enforces strong respect for its institutions. And I really mean "enforce". -
I think people do know about the Constitution, but as for how the whole legal system works, it's pretty complicated.Originally posted by LazerLordz:Same here.
You try talking about the Constitution, and people will go "Huh? Kong simi?" -
hahahahahaha.. pls lah even china got more freedom than singapore now.. so what u think??....
remember 6/4? if same thing happened in sg.. i doubt the end will be any different....
ok ok joking.. dun ask mi go drink coffee hor...
-
it's not complicated lah... let mi explainOriginally posted by ndmmxiaomayi:I think people do know about the Constitution, but as for how the whole legal system works, it's pretty complicated.
1) the old lady is blindfolded.. so.. she dun care who..
2) weighing machine... who got money gold will win lor..
3) the sword will fall on whoever the loser is lor.. very fair one.. cos she is blindfolded remember?
there u go... Justice system!!!!!! v -
I don't think so.Originally posted by ndmmxiaomayi:I think people do know about the Constitution, but as for how the whole legal system works, it's pretty complicated.
Try asking people in your school how many know what the Constitution is meant for?
-
From http://power2thepeoplesg.blogspot.com/
the 1st real step of the main objective to establishing Checks and Balances. Something I'd like to consider the Achilles heel of the PAP, hard to get to, but when you get to it, its the key to everything.
What is the most important key to rule a nation? Its the absolute power and control of the law.
And what is the supreme law of the land? It is the Constitution of The Republic of Singapore.
So the first step is to wrest away total control of the constitution from the PAP. As many of you already know, 66% votes in parliament gives them(PAP) the right to amend the constitution, and thats where the PAP gets its power. Having all but 2 out of 84 seats in Parliament, needless to say that the PAP has absolute control over the constitution. Amendment to this act, introduce that act, amend this act, introduce that act, easily done to entrench themselves. Like what they did to the elections act, and also amended the constitution to give the PM the power to appoint Judges and CJs, on short term contracts, which means, also gives him the right to "not renew" those contracts on "unsatisfactory performance" and I leave the definition of "unsatisfactory performance" to your imagination.... I think it has got something to do with Lee and son and all their libel suits....
So the first major objective, is to gain perhaps 40% of the seats in parliament. PAP will still be in power, with most of their ministers still in cabinet, just that their absolute power over the law will no longer be absolute. And when that happens, the opposition parties will start to have more credibility and may begin to attract more candidates of higher calibre. When that happens joining the PAP will no longer be a "nobrainer" for potential/aspiring politicians. And voting, will then really involve serious deliberation on the part of the voters. Bear in mind, the first step is to wrest absolute power from PAP's hands. -
enlighten me pls.Originally posted by LazerLordz:I don't think so.
Try asking people in your school how many know what the Constitution is meant for? -
The ConstitutionOriginally posted by club18:enlighten me pls.
It should be made compulsory reading for students in Social Studies.
It's a part of our national history and governance for goodness sake. -
Good idea. But you and I know what's the results already.Originally posted by LazerLordz:I don't think so.
Try asking people in your school how many know what the Constitution is meant for? -
I thought a brief introduction was taught to secondary school students during CME (Civics and Moral Education). I remembered it was being taught. A very dry lesson.Originally posted by LazerLordz:The Constitution
It should be made compulsory reading for students in Social Studies. It's a part of our national history and governance for goodness sake.
Social Studies never cover that. -
Humbug. The Govt let idealistic and impressionable kids read that? The Govt rules by fiat and would happily change the constitution at the whim. It's not going to let some kids get in the way.Originally posted by LazerLordz:The Constitution
It should be made compulsory reading for students in Social Studies. It's a part of our national history and governance for goodness sake. -
-
Originally posted by ndmmxiaomayi:Good idea. But you and I know what's the results already.
and Fingolfin, maybe we should never give up? -
no matter what still need to put up some shows wat...Originally posted by allentyb:this is a very misinformed article, i doubt all the judges are under the ruling of the parliament house, if that is the case, don't you think, all the government agency would be able to win all the case without a fight? -
When have you seen Lee and Son lose a libel suit?Originally posted by allentyb:this is a very misinformed article, i doubt all the judges are under the ruling of the parliament house, if that is the case, don't you think, all the government agency would be able to win all the case without a fight?
When PAP Members, incl GohCT sued JBJ in 1981
The judge then, Michael Khoo found him guilty. However, on sentencing, Khoo imposed a fine that was below the threshold that would have stripped Jeyaretnam of his parliamentary seat. Many commentators saw that as a moral victory for Jeyaretnam who had just created political history by being the first opposition politician to be elected to Parliament, breaking the PAP monopoly of over 15 years. Equally, they saw the prosecution as an attempt to unseat him by judicial means.
In August 1981, Khoo was removed from the bench and transferred back to the Attorney-General's Chambers.
in October the same year, Goh Appealed the judgement, and since its a new judge, the amount is 10 times more than Michael Khoo judged, maybe Justice S. Rajendran really wants to stay on the bench =P -
Most recent CSJ defamation suit, CSJ was not allowed by the Judge presiding, to hire a Queen's council. The judge said that the case was not complicaed enough. But Lee and Son hired a Senior Council - Mr Davinder Singh. A Senior council is Singapore's Equivalent of a Queen's Council. CSJ had to settle for self representation in court, arguing his case with a SC from one of Singapore most prestegious law firms.Originally posted by allentyb:this is a very misinformed article, i doubt all the judges are under the ruling of the parliament house, if that is the case, don't you think, all the government agency would be able to win all the case without a fight?
When CSJ appempted to sue MM Lee for calling him a "Cheat, liar and ruffian" the case was thrown out by the courts. -
That's one of the ironies confronting those who choose to pursue the legal profession in Singapore.Originally posted by Jontst78:Most recent CSJ defamation suit, CSJ was not allowed by the Judge presiding, to hire a Queen's council. The judge said that the case was not complicaed enough. But Lee and Son hired a Senior Council - Mr Davinder Singh. A Senior council is Singapore's Equivalent of a Queen's Council. CSJ had to settle for self representation in court, arguing his case with a SC from one of Singapore most prestegious law firms.
When CSJ appempted to sue MM Lee for calling him a "Cheat, liar and ruffian" the case was thrown out by the courts.
By distancing itself from the English Common Law, this regime ends up producing lawyers who - despite their English-educated background - are not that sought-after by international firms on a global basis, restricting the demand for them primarily to Singapore's needs. While they could still rise through the ranks in Singapore, being a Senior Counsel hardly means anything outside these shores - compare that with the opportunities open to someone trained in English Common Law and commissioned as a Queen's Counsel.
It's no surprise why Britain remains such a popular destination, despite its expensive legal education, for those interested in studying a brand of law adopted by most Commonwealth states.