Is there a problem with our legal system? Or the values of the Judges within the system? Its not about the PM having influence over the appointment of judges, or the executive having the power to appoint Judicial Commissioners.
Its about the values of behind the law of the land. The law created in protect the individual rights of the system. Judges that do what is right, and not just follow the Law to the letter. Isn't the Law a consequence of the rights of an individual, created to protect those rights? Does the law in Singapore protect those rights or hold such values?
In 1995
Chief Justice Yong held that any which deprived a person of his life or personally liberty was valid and binding as along as it was validly passed by parliament. The court he said, 'is not concerned with whether it is also fair, just and reasonable as well.**
This is the Chief Justice that was appointed by the Executive who was a classmate if Lee Kuan Yew.
Most recently, in the case of Falungong detainees.
Excerpts from Epoch Times : http://en.epochtimes.com/news/7-6-10/56345.html
'The Prosecution Ignores Inconvenient Evidence
The defendants raised several points regarding the evidence presented, and also the evidence the prosecution chose to withhold.
The prosecution submitted a series of photographs, which it claimed supported the charge. However, there was no date- or timestamp on the photographs—they could have been taken at any time. Further, only one of the photographs showed definitively the location where it was taken; the rest of the photographs bore no signs identifying the scene, and could have been taken in a number of places.
None of the defendants appear in the one photo that was identifiably taken at the scene of the alleged violation. The prosecution submitted no photographic evidence placing the defendants at the scene when the alleged violation occurred.'
'Judge Tung said, "The accused say that if the video were shown in the courtroom, everyone would see how peaceful and harmonious the scene really was. This shows that the defendants were indeed at the scene.
"I agree with the prosecutor that you have done great things. But I am not here to judge whether you are right or wrong; my only concern whether you have permits. You committed an offence because you did not have permits."'
Judge Tung: "But I am not here to judge whether you are right or wrong"So the law does not protect what is right or does it?
Chief Justice Yong
"(The court) is not concerned with whether it is also fair, just and reasonable as well."We have a Chief Justice that is not concerned whether the a law or Judgement is just?
The Definition of justice
1. The quality of being just; fairness.
2. The principle of moral rightness; equity.
3. Conformity to moral rightness in action or attitude; righteousness.
4. The upholding of what is just, especially fair treatment and due reward.
5. Law The administration and procedure of law.
6. Conformity to truth, fact, or sound reason:
If you agree that with the above definitions of justice, do our courts then deliver justice when our judges words contradict most of the above definition of justice? Or our justices(judges) just? Discuss! GO!
Try not to get derailed people