Ladies and Gentlemen,
If ever I have read a more cryptic, a
more disguised, veiled, statement or threat of any person, this is it.
I am referring to the article in Singapore’s state controlled newspaper
the Straits Times of April 04, 2008 titled "Let all have access to justice: CJ Chan".
The entire report, no matter which way one wants to look at it, appears to be one thing, and one thing alone. A mea culpa.
It appears the Chief Justice has finally had pangs of conscience
hurting him, and now it is time for him to admit once and for all, that
the Singapore legal system is not that free at all!
A careful reading of the state controlled newspaper report looks like this.
He says "Singapore
Lower Courts have been placed high in international rankings but what
matters is the quality of justice people here receive".
Just
what is he saying here? Is he finally admitting that these
international rankings that the government so proudly publishes are
rankings not to judge whether the law is impartially applied; but
instead, to judge how fast cases are dealt with and money recovered.
Is
he admitting that all respected international organizations who truly
judge whether rule of law and human rights exist; such as Amnesty
International and Human Rights Watch have stated repeatedly that
Singapore courts do not exercise the rule of law?
Is he
therefore admitting finally that Singapore does not practice the rule
of law, and that Singapore is nothing more than a dictatorship ruled by
Lee's dictates? Is he now saying that the time has finally come for
Singapore judges to actually behave as judges and not as PAP
politicians?
Chief Justice Chan says "While ranking matters, they should not detract from what matters".
Again,
we see what appears to be an admission that these rankings such as
PERC, a Hong Kong based organization which caters to multi national
businesses, gives high marks consistently to Singapore legal system;
because it is more concerned about how much profit off shore
businessmen can make in Singapore; not how much justice an ordinary
Singaporean Dr. Chee Soon Juan can get in Singapore’s courts.
When he says "they should not detract from what matters"
is he now admitting there is in fact a serious problem with the state
of the law in Singapore, because of a lack of an independent judiciary,
and that something should be finally done about it?
"We should not allow them to dominate and overwhelm our own assessment of the quality of justice that we administer to our people"
Are we seeing an admission that he has neglected to examine the quality
of justice in Singapore; that rule of law is indeed lacking and that
something now has to be done about it?
He then goes on to
directly and deliberately admit that these foreign rankings that Lee
Kuan Yew has selectively relied upon were "limited to certain
aspects of justice such as how fast litigants can get a judgment from
the courts and enforce them, as in cases in debt recovery and
bankruptcy".
Is he therefore finally admitting that Lee
Kuan Yew and his government have been downright untruthful and
dishonest all these past 40 years when they routinely went around
trumpeting the fact that Singapore follows the rule of law based on
these one sided reports; but they knew all along that Singapore judges
are not impartial, beholden to Lee Kuan Yew and the law is nothing more
than decrees which he executes through his compliant judges.
Is he finally admitting that not only Lee Kuan Yew but he himself has been somewhat untruthful all these years!
And here he finally admits that “these
rankings surveys serve as a useful purpose in alerting foreign
investors to the potential strengths and weaknesses of the judicial or
legal systems of the countries".
Is this therefore an
admission, belated, but still welcome that these business orientated
rankings, do nothing for the average Fatima binte Kastari, in her claim
that she did not violate the law, in the exercise of her constitutional
right of freedom of assembly, when she protested at the Tak Boleh
Tahan, in front of Parliament House?
I have no doubt in my mind
that the Chief Justice of Singapore was trying to tell us something.
Since if he was trying to say two and two are four, he could have done
a much better job.
Let us hope that our expectation is indeed
correct. That Mr. Chan Sek Keong, the Chief Justice of Singapore has
finally seen the light, realized the folly of his ways and has finally
picked up the courage as Thomas Beckett did in King Henry's court; and
has finally declared that business cannot go on as usual. The time has
finally come for the rule of law and democracy!
And let us hope that finally he has decided after all to become a judge, and not carry on in those robes as a PAP politician.
If
that is in fact your intention, well done old man. But the question is,
if you did what you threaten, will you end up as a bookseller just as
JB Jeyaretnam and Dr. Chee Soon Juan have become, after inviting the
wrath of the tiger, Mr. Lee Kuan Yew.
Please tell us more, Mr. Chief Justice.
Gopalan Nair
http://singaporedissident.blogspot.com/2008/04/is-this-singapores-chief-justice-chans.html
Judges are political appointees even in the land of the free. I would not read too much into CJ Chan's comments.
What goes around will finally come around.
Perhaps C.J. Chan is attempting to make his own mark in the history books of the Singapore Judiciary - in a more dramatic human dimension compared to what the previous C.J Yong Pung How had left behind in terms of an improved infrastructure for a modern judicial legacy.
Any person with a minimum sense of human intelligence - rich or poor - can see that the present judicial system serves justice only to those who can afford to pay for the services of the Courts.
Is
something wrong with the SgForum Server ????
I had difficulties accessing SgForums, and now with one click - I get seven similar post.
deleted - post
deleted copies
deleted copies
deleted copies
deleted copies
I sense a misinterpretation of facts by Mr Gopalan Nair oversight on each individual parts of the chronological article written in The Straits Times dated 4th April 2008.
'Let all access to justice' is merely a generalised statement made by CJ Chan on the state of legal system alone. And the article should be read in full.