Prof Jayakumar reprimanded Sylvia Lim for conspiracy theory
-
I am surprised as a lawyer, Prof Jayakumar does not seem to know or attach sufficient weight to the fact that under the constitution, courts and parliament are two places where elected MPs are officially granted the right to speak up on any issues, right;y or wrongly believed, factual or false, substantiated or unsubstantiated with immunity from any prosecution of any nature without fear or favor or threat of sanction.
Yet prof Jaya keeps forgetting this fact that MP Sylvia Lim was speaking with immunity from any threats or prosecution and it is wrong for him to threaten her with any commission of inquiry just because she raised certain issues not to the liking of the ruling party. As an elected representative she has the higher duty than ruling party's need to save face to ask questions conscientiously without being subjected to such threats or admonishing for resurrecting the past conspiracy theory raised by former MP Jeyaretnam.
Does MP Sylvia Lim not having the right to speak on relevant issues like independence of the judiciary free from any influence by the ruling party especially in a country widely known and even admitted to be practising autocracy or top-down system.
Has MP Sylvia Lim not the duty to ask questions in parliament so as to get facts from ministers. If Jayakumar is so sure that the judiciary is fully free from influence by the executive directly or indirectly, he is the one who should produce full facts to address issues of concern expressed in the past or now.
For example Jayakumar should clear the air himself to many unanswered issues from the past as well as to whether the decision to transfer judges like Michael Khoo was made independently without influence by the executive since such transfer seemed to happen to judges after favorable verdict was given to opposition leader being sued for speaking in the course of electioneering process.
All that Jayakumar needs to do is to understand that in an age of globalisation, ministers should globalize and not continue to work like ostriches with faces buried under the sand and refusing to answer question of MP with objective facts by countering her with convening commission of inquiry to put her down for truly speaking up on people's utmost issues. -
any links to substantiate the information above? Interested to see the exchange between both parties
-
I have only 2 words tosay to Jaya.
Sieg Heil.
-
All this is TS's own opinions and representations, specially inferred from somewhere he read.
May not be the truth. -
Prove to us that the above is TS's own opinions and representations.Originally posted by airgrinder:All this is TS's own opinions and representations, specially inferred from somewhere he read.
May not be the truth. -
Straits Times 17.7.2007 H4 "Sylvia Lim ticked off or questioning courts' integrity"
By Sue-Ass Chia
"Non-constituency MP Sylvia Lim was ticked off yesterday for her insinuations about possible executive interference in the judiciary through appointments made to the Legal Service Commission (LSL)
Deputy Prime Minister S. Jayakumar said the Workers' Party chairman was resurfacing similar allegations made by one-time WP MP J.B. Jeyaratnam in 1986...."
Read the report in the Straits Times for yourself. -
woot...
so formal...
a lawyer in sgf...
-
Robert, where did you get this from?
There is nothing wrong for Sylvia to speak on such issue, if she or other opposition party don't speak, the common people will not have the chance to know. This is rather a sensitive issue, so this explained such reaction from jayakumar. To them, it is best that nobody touch on this subject.
Oppression we have for so long already!!
-
thanks for info. I don't subscribe to STs, as I find that there are loads and loads of crap in there and full of propaganda. I only buy STs on Sundays.Originally posted by robertteh:Straits Times 17.7.2007 H4 "Sylvia Lim ticked off or questioning courts' integrity"
By Sue-Ass Chia
"Non-constituency MP Sylvia Lim was ticked off yesterday for her insinuations about possible executive interference in the judiciary through appointments made to the Legal Service Commission (LSL)
Deputy Prime Minister S. Jayakumar said the Workers' Party chairman was resurfacing similar allegations made by one-time WP MP J.B. Jeyaratnam in 1986...."
Read the report in the Straits Times for yourself. -
Say together "Ad Hominen attacks do not constitute an argument"Originally posted by airgrinder:All this is TS's own opinions and representations, specially inferred from somewhere he read.
May not be the truth.
And repeat et. al. -
So instead of clarifying, they scold her.Originally posted by robertteh:Straits Times 17.7.2007 H4 "Sylvia Lim ticked off or questioning courts' integrity"
By Sue-Ass Chia
"Non-constituency MP Sylvia Lim was ticked off yesterday for her insinuations about possible executive interference in the judiciary through appointments made to the Legal Service Commission (LSL)
Deputy Prime Minister S. Jayakumar said the Workers' Party chairman was resurfacing similar allegations made by one-time WP MP J.B. Jeyaratnam in 1986...."
Read the report in the Straits Times for yourself.
Well done. -
PAP think themselves a parent or god
can tick off people instead of defending -
Utter arrogance.
If he can substantiate his points with facts, then we shall talk. If not, it's just throwing a whole bunch of hot air. This is politics, and if there is a perception like this, then it must be addressed, not telling the person who raised this to sit down and shut up.
Haven't they learnt at all? Oh I forgot, they lack the requisite intellect. -
A step backwards for the legal system.
-
got it from sammyboy kopitiam.
Is this the article?
'Conspiracy theory' revived and rebutted
Tuesday • July 17, 2007
Derrick A Paulo
[email protected]
SOME 20 years ago, former Workers' Party (WP) chief J B Jeyaretnam was fined for abusing his privileges as a Member of Parliament, by alleging executive interference in the judiciary.
Yesterday, Non-Constituency MP Sylvia Lim once again raised the spectre of possible influence by the Government.
Arguing against an amendment to the Constitution, which would allow the Prime Minister to nominate up to two members of the Legal Service Commission, the WP chairman said the change could "undermine public confidence in the neutrality of our courts".
The commission, which sits at the apex of the Legal Service, is in charge of personnel management issues, including the dismissal and disciplining of legal service officers.
Presenting the Bill to Parliament, Deputy Prime Minister and Law Minister S Jayakumar explained that the Prime Minister's powers would be consistent with his role in recommending appointees to the Public Service Commission and "his retaining responsibility of the Civil Service".
Added Prof Jayakumar: "Once (the Prime Minister) has nominated two members and they're appointed, his role ends there. Neither he or the other nominating members can direct the nominees to act or decide in any particular manner.
"They take decisions in concert with other Legal Service Commission members."
The commission can have up to nine members.
However, Ms Lim, who as an NCMP is unable to vote on constitutional matters, questioned the rationale for the change.
"(This) potentially gives the executive branch of the Government even more influence over critical career decisions of our judicial officers. My concern is that this can be interpreted as a regressive step for judicial independence," she said.
Her comments drew a sharp rebuke from Prof Jayakumar.
"Ms Sylvia Lim, through her speech, is in fact resurrecting ... a conspiracy theory," he said.
Mr Jeyaretnam's remarks led to a commission of inquiry into those specific allegations, as well as a committee formed by Parliament to look into whether he had abused his parliamentary privileges.
Both groups found him to be "wrong and unjustified in making those allegations", Prof Jayakumar reminded Ms Lim.
The most important test of the legal system, he added, is "the leadership in the Government, and whether the Government respects the integrity and independence of the judiciary". In the case of Singapore's judiciary, he said, the results can be seen in international rankings, which "year after year" place the Republic "among the top in the world".
Said Prof Jayakumar: "We have the system, it works. We're now fine-tuning it to work even better ... I say, let's keep what works and let's not besmirch the reputation we have so carefully built up over the years."
Offering a different perspective, Nominated MP Thio Li-Ann noted that although the Prime Minister would be given new powers, there would also be a "series of checks and balances" — the Elected President would have to approve those appointed by the Prime Minister.
The new laws also prevent MPs, trade unionists and office-holders in political associations, among others, from becoming members of the Legal Service Commission, noted Prof Thio, a constitutional law expert.
Tanjong Pagar GRC MP Indranee Rajah, a practising Senior Counsel, also singled out the President's role.
In remarks directed specifically at Ms Lim, who wanted security of tenure for Subordinate Court judges, like their High Court counterparts, Ms Rajah said: "We have no issue with the appointment of our High Court judges ... each and every one of them is appointed by the President acting in his discretion, on the advice of the PM."
Parliament voted 75 to 2 in favour of the changes. Both Opposition MPs Low Thia Khiang and Chiam See Tong voted against the Bill.
Copyright MediaCorp Press Ltd. All rights reserved. -
I think the PAP still think its the pre-internet days where they can do what they want.
The more authoritarian they are, the more likely they would lose support among the younger generation. -
Originally posted by rathcycle:woot...
so formal...
a lawyer in sgf... -
Yes, kindly explain how it is just TS's own opinions...Originally posted by airgrinder:All this is TS's own opinions and representations, specially inferred from somewhere he read.
May not be the truth. -
You know, the way parents frightens a child not to go into a dark place without explaning why but just admonishing; "eee,, dark dark there, got monster in there don't go!"Originally posted by Fingolfin_Noldor:So instead of clarifying, they scold her.
Well done.
Very similar.....
But don't you think Sylvia knows where to thread and where not to thread?
I feel she has backup plans... -
Looks like they think that they are gods or something and people cannot even ask them about important issues like conflict of interests and independence of the judiciary.Originally posted by robertteh:All that Jayakumar needs to do is to understand that in an age of globalisation, ministers should globalize and not continue to work like ostriches with faces buried under the sand and refusing to answer question of MP with objective facts by countering her with convening commission of inquiry to put her down for truly speaking up on people's utmost issues.
Instead of assuring the public of their sincerity and explaining why there would not be any conflict, they attack the one that ask.
If they have nothing to hide, why should they be so defensive? -
Obviously, it is something they can't risk being questioned about - especially when there are undeniable flaws which they have no ready or believable explanations at hand...Originally posted by AndrewPKYap:Looks like they think that they are gods or something and people cannot even ask them about important issues like conflict of interests and independence of the judiciary.
Instead of assuring the public of their sincerity and explaining why there would not be any conflict, they attack the one that ask.
If they have nothing to hide, why should they be so defensive? -
NCMP Sylvia Lim raised an issue in Parliament and asked Jaya to clarify..
The public would have expected a proper rsponse from Jaya.
Instead Jaya “resurrected” a conspiracy theory, reminded Ms Lim about Jeyaratnam’s “abuse of parliamentary privileges”…more like cautioning Ms Lim than giving a direct answer!
Indranee Rajah said: "We have no issue with the appointment of our High Court judges ... each and every one of them is appointed by the President acting in his discretion, on the advice of the PM.". This is good for a laugh.
Parliament voted two parties(2 votes) to one party(75 votes) against the Bill! -
-
Speech By Sylvia Lim, NCMP
Mr Speaker Sir,
I would like to raise serious reservations about 1 aspect of the Bill which is clause 8 which amends Art 111 to make changes to the composition of the Legal Service Commission.
These reservations arise because the Legal Service also comprises persons who are serving in the Subordinate Court judiciary as Magistrates and District Judges. The Subordinate Courts administer justice and all of us have a right to expect that the judicial officers will administer justice impartially. As such, we must make all efforts to give the public confidence that the personnel management system of these judicial officers will enhance their standing as independent arbiters of disputes. I have listened to the DPMÂ’s justifications for the changes. Notwithstanding that, I believe that clause 8 has the potential of undermining public confidence in the courtsÂ’ independence.
Cl 8 – Changing the composition of the LSC
Under the existing Constitution, the LSC comprises of the Chief Justice as President, the Attorney-General, the Chairman of the Public Service Commission, a High Court Judge nominated by the CJ and up to 2 members of the PSC.
Under Cl 8 of the Bill, the composition of the LSC is to be changed to include up to 2 nominees of the Prime Minister.
If the Bill is passed, the LSC still retains its role of deciding on dismissal and disciplinary action of legal officers. For officers above a certain threshold grade, the LSC will also make career decisions such as promotions and transfers.
Could the Minister clarify further the rationale for having a new category of LSC members who are the PMÂ’s nominees? If the concern is to ensure that Legal Service manpower policies are in line with the rest of the civil service, it seems to me that the PSC representatives on the LSC can already perform that role.
Sir, the members of the PSC sitting on the LSC had been originally appointed to the PSC on the recommendations of the Prime Minister. The Attorney-General who also sits on the LSC is a member of the government. To now have 2 members specifically nominated by the PM potentially gives the executive branch of the government even more influence over critical career decisions of our judicial officers.
Sir, my concern is that this can be interpreted as a regressive step for judicial independence.
Under the existing system, it is already clear that the Subordinate Court judiciary does not enjoy security of tenure unlike High Court Judges, as they can lose their judicial role at any time by being transferred out of the Courts to other departments. Whatever the rationale for having a category of PMÂ’s nominees on the LSC, we should step back and ask ourselves what message is being sent. Even if the intention is not to weaken the will of the Subordinate Court judiciary, how would the public perceive this move? WouldnÂ’t they think that the judicial officers would still need to consider the interests of the executive government in reaching their decisions? After all, the system we are putting in place specifically allows nominees of the PM a say in their career progression.
Cl 9 proposes a new Art 111AA to set up personnel boards to exercise the functions of the LSC permanently i.e. once the boards are constituted, the LSC can no longer exercise those functions. The members of the personnel boards will be appointed based on LSC recommendations.
Since the composition of the LSC itself is going to change to specifically include the PMÂ’s nominees, then recommendations of the LSC for the personnel boards would carry the same concerns about how independent they are vis-Ã -vis the executive government. While it may well be the case that the nominees are persons of integrity, would they be perceived as truly independent actors?
Sir, this Bill touches on one of the pillars of the rule of law – that the law is to be applied to everybody equally, regardless of status or power. While we have entrenched safeguards to protect the independence of the High Court judiciary, we have not done the same for the Subordinate Court judiciary. The Subordinate Courts’ jurisdiction has been enlarged greatly over the years. They handle the vast majority of criminal cases, and civil claims up to $250,000. According to their Annual Report 2006, they dealt with more than 350,000 cases that year. In terms of caseload, their role in the administration of justice directly affects more lives than the High Court.
We should avoid taking any steps which might be perceived as weakening the independence of the Subordinate Court judiciary. I believe the proposed change in the LSC composition carries a real risk of undermining public confidence in the neutrality of our courts. The proposed changes are of grave concern. -
The law in this land exists only to serve the state and not the people. Period.