Constitutional provision relating to independence of judges
-
Jontst78 wrote:
I am not a lawyer and would like to give my comments from a layman point of view. One would have thought that the constitution should have provided some other provisions that spell out the functions of a judge of the supreme court including its being an independent branch of government and its right to exercise their judicial duties without influence from any one or the executive.
one more for legalised corruption.
Quote:
Article 94 Constitution of Supreme Court
(2) The office of a Judge of the Supreme Court shall not be abolished during his continuance in office.
(4) In order to facilitate the disposal of business in the Supreme Court, the President, if he, acting in his discretion, concurs with the advice of the Prime Minister, may appoint a person qualified for appointment as a Judge of the Supreme Court to be a Judicial Commissioner of the Supreme Court in accordance with Article 95 for such period or periods as the President thinks fit; and a Judicial Commissioner so appointed may, in respect of such class or classes of cases as the Chief Justice may specify, exercise the powers and perform the functions of a Judge of the High Court. Anything done by a Judicial Commissioner when acting in accordance with the terms of his appointment shall have the same validity and effect as if done by a Judge of that Court and, in respect thereof, he shall have the same powers and enjoy the same immunities as if he had been a Judge of that Court.
(5) For the purposes of Clause (4), the President may appoint a person qualified for appointment as a Judge of the Supreme Court to be a Judicial Commissioner to hear and determine a specified case only.
Article 4 can easily be used to circumvent article 2, and put judges' appointments at the mercy of the PM. Maybe to sunsure thier obedience?Anyone knows for sure, how many of our judges are judicial commisioners at the moment? I heard the CJ is or was a judicial commosioner, can anyone confirm this?
It will be a deficient constitution if there is no such provision. Then citizens must stand up to fight for such a provision to be included in the constitution.
Assuming that judges are appointed by the president on advice of the PM, it is still customary that constitution would still clearly spell out the judicial functions of supreme court judges (not necessarily the same for judicial commissioners) as an independent branch of government with specific function for good corporate governance of the country.
If there has been such a provision in the constitution then article 2 should not be superseded or supplanted by article 4.
Then article 4 should be interpreted in another way that PM may have the power to advise the president to appoint a judicial commissioner but such appointments should be for the purpose of facilitating the performance of duties of a judge of the supreme court but not to replace or abolish the judge of the supreme court.
I guess article 2 is for the purpose of ensuring judicial independence but that has been misinterpreted to suit political purpose of control of judges. -
Jontst78 wrote:
Appointment of Judges of Supreme Court
one more for legalised corruption.
Jontst78 wrote:
one more for legalised corruption.
Article 94 Constitution of Supreme Court
(2) The office of a Judge of the Supreme Court shall not be abolished during his continuance in office.
(4) In order to facilitate the disposal of business in the Supreme Court, the President, if he, acting in his discretion, concurs with the advice of the Prime Minister, may appoint a person qualified for appointment as a Judge of the Supreme Court to be a Judicial Commissioner of the Supreme Court in accordance with Article 95 for such period or periods as the President thinks fit; and a Judicial Commissioner so appointed may, in respect of such class or classes of cases as the Chief Justice may specify, exercise the powers and perform the functions of a Judge of the High Court. Anything done by a Judicial Commissioner when acting in accordance with the terms of his appointment shall have the same validity and effect as if done by a Judge of that Court and, in respect thereof, he shall have the same powers and enjoy the same immunities as if he had been a Judge of that Court.
(5) For the purposes of Clause (4), the President may appoint a person qualified for appointment as a Judge of the Supreme Court to be a Judicial Commissioner to hear and determine a specified case only.
Article 4 can easily be used to circumvent article 2, and put judges' appointments at the mercy of the PM. Maybe to sunsure thier obedience?Anyone knows for sure, how many of our judges are judicial commisioners at the moment? I heard the CJ is or was a judicial commosioner, can anyone confirm this?
95. —(1) The Chief Justice, the Judges of Appeal and the Judges of the High Court shall be appointed by the President if he, acting in his discretion, concurs with the advice of the Prime Minister.
(2) Before tendering his advice as to the appointment under clause (1) of a Judge, other than the Chief Justice, the Prime Minister shall consult the Chief Justice.
As outline in article 95, judges are appointed by the President upon PM recommendation with consultation with CJ. Having been appointed into office by the President himself means the honourable judges are answerable to the sovereignty of the nation as a whole with due respect for law and order.
The sole purpose for the circumvent of clause 4 & 2 in article 94 can be a lawful way to remove power from the judges in office should any unforeseeable situation arise. Beside, the judicial commissioners appointed hold his or her appointment for a certain period(s) as the President thinks fit.
I understand your concern, but I am confident our judiciary is an independent branch.
-
The sole purpose for the circumvent of clause 4 & 2 in article 94 can be a lawful way to remove power from the judges in office should any unforeseeable situation arise. Beside, the judicial commissioners appointed hold his or her appointment for a certain period(s) as the President thinks fit.
If the government acting on the supposition that a judge is liable to do something wrong should feel that such a judge should be removed or disciplined, it must exercise such control of the judge without undermining its judicial independence. Least of all it should not extend such power to the executive.
The president (who is elected by the people and not appointed by or beholden to the executive) should remain the higher authority to decide on the conduct of a judge and whether a judge is to be impeached. If such a higher power is granted to an adversarial executive who sees itself as the be all and end all of government which wants to control the judiciary it could lead to worse consequences and the whole judiciary will cower in fear of such a government and cannot exercise its other higher responsibility of making the whole government including itself accountable to and serving the people. -
Tenure of office and remuneration of Judges of Supreme Court
98. —(1) Subject to this Article, a Judge of the Supreme Court shall hold office until he attains the age of 65 years or such later time not being later than 6 months after he attains that age, as the President may approve.
(2) A Judge of the Supreme Court may at any time resign his office by writing under his hand addressed to the President, but shall not be removed from office except in accordance with clauses (3), (4) and (5).
(3) If the Prime Minister, or the Chief Justice after consulting the Prime Minister, represents to the President that a Judge of the Supreme Court ought to be removed on the ground of misbehaviour or of inability, from infirmity of body or mind or any other cause, to properly discharge the functions of his office, the President shall appoint a tribunal in accordance with clause (4) and shall refer that representation to it; and may on the recommendation of the tribunal remove the Judge from office.
(4) The tribunal shall consist of not less than 5 persons who hold or have held office as a Judge of the Supreme Court, or, if it appears to the President expedient to make such an appointment, persons who hold or have held equivalent office in any part of the Commonwealth, and the tribunal shall be presided over by the member first in the following order, namely, the Chief Justice according to their precedence among themselves and other members according to the order of their appointment to an office qualifying them for membership (the older coming before the younger of 2 members with appointments of the same date).
(5) Pending any reference and report under clause (3), the President may, if he, acting in his discretion, concurs with the recommendation of the Prime Minister and, in the case of any other Judge, after consulting the Chief Justice, suspend a Judge of the Supreme Court from the exercise of his functions.
As you can see in clause (1), if you are an appointed judge, you cannot be removed from office, cannot recieve pay cut until you are 65 or you are removed on disciplinary grounds.
But if you are a judical commmisioner, you are not protected that way, hence, your career as a judge is hanging by a thread, that the whim of the President, who recieves advice from the PM.
Now, if the Judicary is to serve as a check for the PM, how can the PM have a hand in the appointment of the judicary? Its like a manager in a company facing an independent audit and he picks his own subordinate as the chief auditor. -
I refer you to Article 98 clause 3,Originally posted by robertteh:If the government acting on the supposition that a judge is liable to do something wrong should feel that such a judge should be removed or disciplined, it must exercise such control of the judge without undermining its judicial independence. Least of all it should not extend such power to the executive.
The president (who is elected by the people and not appointed by or beholden to the executive) should remain the higher authority to decide on the conduct of a judge and whether a judge is to be impeached. If such a higher power is granted to an adversarial executive who sees itself as the be all and end all of government which wants to control the judiciary it could lead to worse consequences and the whole judiciary will cower in fear of such a government and cannot exercise its other higher responsibility of making the whole government including itself accountable to and serving the people.
whereby If the Prime Minister, or the Chief Justice after consulting the Prime Minister, represents to the President that a Judge of the Supreme Court ought to be removed on the ground of misbehaviour or of inability, from infirmity of body or mind or any other cause, to properly discharge the functions of his office, the President shall appoint a tribunal.
Following I refer you to Article 94 clause 4,
in order to facilitate the disposal of business in the Supreme Court, the President, if he, acting in his discretion, concurs with the advice of the Prime Minister, may appoint a person qualified for appointment as a Judge of the Supreme Court to be a Judicial Commissioner of the Supreme Court in accordance with Article 95 for such period or periods as the President thinks fit.
Judicial Commissioner holds the period(s) of appointment with similar power vested to the Judges of Supreme Court until PM tenders his advice on the new Judge of Supreme Court to the President. -
I refer you to Article 94 Clause 4,Originally posted by Jontst78:
As you can see in clause (1), if you are an appointed judge, you cannot be removed from office, cannot recieve pay cut until you are 65 or you are removed on disciplinary grounds.
But if you are a judical commmisioner, you are not protected that way, hence, your career as a judge is hanging by a thread, that the whim of the President, who recieves advice from the PM.
Now, if the Judicary is to serve as a check for the PM, how can the PM have a hand in the appointment of the judicary? Its like a manager in a company facing an independent audit and he picks his own subordinate as the chief auditor.
In order to facilitate the disposal of business in the Supreme Court, the President, if he, acting in his discretion, concurs with the advice of the Prime Minister, may appoint a person qualified for appointment as a Judge of the Supreme Court to be a Judicial Commissioner of the Supreme Court in accordance with Article 95 for such period or periods as the President thinks fit; and a Judicial Commissioner so appointed may, in respect of such class or classes of cases as the Chief Justice may specify, exercise the powers and perform the functions of a Judge of the High Court. Anything done by a Judicial Commissioner when acting in accordance with the terms of his appointment shall have the same validity and effect as if done by a Judge of that Court and, in respect thereof, he shall have the same powers and enjoy the same immunities as if he had been a Judge of that Court.
The PM shall consult the CJ upon tendering his Judges of the Supreme Court to the President who acting on his discretion, concurs with the PM, may appoints the Judges of the Supreme Court of Singapore. -
Can someone please put all these in English?
-
It is self-evident that such articles like article 4 does not really contribute to the independence of the judiciary. Is there such an urgent need to appoint judicial commissioners to facilitate the performance of the role of the judges of the supreme court? Can we say that our judges of the supreme court are less able and capable than our political leaders to facilitate their adjudications of cases or dispense better justice.Originally posted by TooFree:I refer you to Article 98 clause 3,
whereby If the Prime Minister, or the Chief Justice after consulting the Prime Minister, represents to the President that a Judge of the Supreme Court ought to be removed on the ground of misbehaviour or of inability, from infirmity of body or mind or any other cause, to properly discharge the functions of his office, the President shall appoint a tribunal.
Following I refer you to Article 94 clause 4,
in order to facilitate the disposal of business in the Supreme Court, the President, if he, acting in his discretion, concurs with the advice of the Prime Minister, may appoint a person qualified for appointment as a Judge of the Supreme Court to be a Judicial Commissioner of the Supreme Court in accordance with Article 95 for such period or periods as the President thinks fit.
Judicial Commissioner holds the period(s) of appointment with similar power vested to the Judges of Supreme Court until PM tenders his advice on the new Judge of Supreme Court to the President.
Obviously our political leaders as usual is worrying too much and trying to play nanny again and seeking ways and means of reining in the judicial branch of the government so that they can control or subdue them to their purposes.
No wonder our judges are so subservient to the executive. In another time and another age, such a device like article 4 will no doubt be exposed as repugnant to or interferences or undermining the independence of the judiciary. -
Originally posted by TooFree:
No surprises how the Executive and Legislative are supposed to "cooperate" in assisting the fascists in absolute totalitarianism through controlling the Judiciary there.
I refer you to Article 94 Clause 4,
In order to facilitate the disposal of business in the Supreme Court, the President, if he, acting in his discretion, concurs with the advice of the Prime Minister, may appoint a person qualified for appointment as a Judge of the Supreme Court to be a Judicial Commissioner of the Supreme Court in accordance with Article 95 for such period or periods as the President thinks fit; and a Judicial Commissioner so appointed may, in respect of such class or classes of cases as the Chief Justice may specify, exercise the powers and perform the functions of a Judge of the High Court. Anything done by a Judicial Commissioner when acting in accordance with the terms of his appointment shall have the same validity and effect as if done by a Judge of that Court and, in respect thereof, he shall have the same powers and enjoy the same immunities as if he had been a Judge of that Court.
The PM shall consult the CJ upon tendering his Judges of the Supreme Court to the President who acting on his discretion, concurs with the PM, may appoints the Judges of the Supreme Court of Singapore.
To complete the convoluted picture to deceive most laymen, anyone knows who the PM should actually tender his resignation to should he so wish?
No prizes for guessing... -
Freedom of religion, freedom of the press, freedom of person under the protection of the habeas corpus; and trial by juries impartially selected, these principles form the bright constellation which has gone before us. -Thomas Jefferson
Chosen by ex class mate and influenced by knowing which side of bread the butter is spreaded which was claimed by Francis Seow. Can we call our judges in Singapore impartially selected?