How fair do u think Singapore's judicial system is.
-
With this question i post, i refer not to the biasness of the judges but how accessible the law it to its citizens.
1) Is there a different set of laws for the rich and the poor?
2) How good is a country's constitution, if that constitution can changed anytime with only a vote through parliament, and not with a referendum?
3) Is only one judge presiding in High court sufficient? Does this outweigh the cons of a jury system?
4) Why does 99% of our population, not know their rights as citizens? -
does 99% of the Americans know their state laws? I mean their state laws.
Don't blame ignorance on others. -
Ignorance is one thing, but access to information is another. IN many countries outside Singapre, basic law is taught in high schools. It provides for a more reasonable and civil society. Well at least that is the aim of it. Why is it not taught here in Singapore?
-
Please define many countries and back up with valid examples and numbers.Originally posted by RuffRider:Ignorance is one thing, but access to information is another. IN many countries outside Singapre, basic law is taught in high schools. It provides for a more reasonable and civil society. Well at least that is the aim of it. Why is it not taught here in Singapore?
Then define basic law, its context and provide necessary coverage regarding it.
I think the idea of backing up statements with valid and solid points are lacking. -
if CSJ can win his court case , first then sayOriginally posted by RuffRider:With this question i post, i refer not to the biasness of the judges but how accessible the law it to its citizens.
1) Is there a different set of laws for the rich and the poor?
2) How good is a country's constitution, if that constitution can changed anytime with only a vote through parliament, and not with a referendum?
3) Is only one judge presiding in High court sufficient? Does this outweigh the cons of a jury system?
4) Why does 99% of our population, not know their rights as citizens? -
Why does Choo Wee Khiang escape with a 7 day jail term for corruption and fraud charges whild his co-conspirators get stiffer sentences? I bet if he had been a parliamentarian in the West, he could be looking at anything more than 3 months behind bars. It is clear that the judicial system has some sympathy for him simply because he is a member of the ruling party.
Furthermore, Vidya Shanker would be innocent if he did what he did in London. The people there have more liberal attitudes towards ONS and would agree with the statement that he had been framed by his "victim", who could benefit by selling her account of that fling to the tabloids. Rape charges have been compiled and dropped due to such practices by the UK media. -
The Laws of the land consist of common laws and statutes, are they not? I am not a lawyer and could only understand such matters from common sense or practical approach.Originally posted by iveco:Why does Choo Wee Khiang escape with a 7 day jail term for corruption and fraud charges whild his co-conspirators get stiffer sentences? I bet if he had been a parliamentarian in the West, he could be looking at anything more than 3 months behind bars. It is clear that the judicial system has some sympathy for him simply because he is a member of the ruling party.
Furthermore, Vidya Shanker would be innocent if he did what he did in London. The people there have more liberal attitudes towards ONS and would agree with the statement that he had been framed by his "victim", who could benefit by selling her account of that fling to the tabloids. Rape charges have been compiled and dropped due to such practices by the UK media.
The British laws of common laws were emulated by many other countries as they have been widely acknowledged by many eminent judges elsewhere to be the fairest and most equitable. Where there exist uncertainties in interpretations, there will be a system of convention and practices like past precedents and authorities to ensure the justice is administered on the whole fairly and equitably as had been done for many years. Even today, Singapore laws are probably still on the whole influenced by common law cases from Britain to a certain extent.
Unfortunately, Singapore has taken a dramatic departure from the British basic common laws in many respects. The onus of proof was changed and amended in many cases and discretion of judges increasingly applied. In many cases, the sentence was enhanced beyond the usual bound allowed for under the laws or practices. I may be wrong in my views of the errors as pointed out recently in overturning of chief justice' enhancing of sentence of a divorce petitioner for hitting of the case lawyer but would like to hear the views of others.
If Singapore should continue to grant more and more discretions to the judges, will that not lead to future problems especially the sanctity of rule of laws.
In my layman view, there should be a parallel set of laws requiring the judges to be more accountable and transparent since many of them are no longer bound by juries system having been abolished sometime back in our particular political evolvement. Will there in future be more equitability principles governing evidences and presumptions by passing of some such laws?
The government has passed many administrative delegated to the ministers, government departments and statutory boards like HDB, BCA etc. These various laws are redefining and presuming responsibilities of flat-owners and dwellers in the case of faulty windows or lack of maintenance etc.
Under various Laws of parliament, government cannot be sued for losses or damages suffered by citizens. These areas of laws have already affected fairness and equitability principles so clearly established under the British common laws.
Because government plays such a big part in efficiency of govenment that such a process of passing more presumptuous administrative laws might have adversely affected people's aspirations to observe equitable rule of laws based on fairness and equitability at every strata of governance.
It is important going forward as part of the policy of openness and liberalization to limit the expanding discretion of judges as well as to limit the administrative powers given to acquire car park lands of a church at one dollar?
To ensure accountability and transparency the starting point will be the constitution which should be re-examined to incorporate the 7 points of true democracy as posted in this forum.
There will be a great deal of benefits and very little disadvantages to uphold and adopt the 7 points will help to establish rules of laws at all stratum of society and will help Singapore to establish itself firmly as the true home of all citizens who love equity and openness and transparency in the next phase of political development.
From the overall perspective of building a more competitive economy, to attract all kinds of talents to make Singapore succeed, it should proceed to establish and amalgamate various sources of laws of evidence and sentencing and subject them to greater vigour of checks and balances to avoid future uncertainties and problems? I feel an act of political will will be necessary to recognize the current problems and improve whole legal and judicial system to be more open up and accountable.
-
All our laws are here :http://statutes.agc.gov.sg/Originally posted by robertteh:The Laws of the land consist of common laws and statutes, are they not? I am not a lawyer and could only understand such matters from common sense or practical approach.
The British laws of common laws were emulated by many other countries as they have been widely acknowledged by many eminent judges elsewhere to be the fairest and most equitable. Where there exist uncertainties in interpretations, there will be a system of convention and practices like past precedents and authorities to ensure the justice is administered on the whole fairly and equitably as had been done for many years. Even today, Singapore laws are probably still on the whole influenced by common law cases from Britain to a certain extent.
Unfortunately, Singapore has taken a dramatic departure from the British basic common laws in many respects. The onus of proof was changed and amended in many cases and discretion of judges increasingly applied. In many cases, the sentence was enhanced beyond the usual bound allowed for under the laws or practices. I may be wrong in my views of the errors as pointed out recently in overturning of chief justice' enhancing of sentence of a divorce petitioner for hitting of the case lawyer but would like to hear the views of others.
If Singapore should continue to grant more and more discretions to the judges, will that not lead to future problems especially the sanctity of rule of laws.
In my layman view, there should be a parallel set of laws requiring the judges to be more accountable and transparent since many of them are no longer bound by juries system having been abolished sometime back in our particular political evolvement. Will there in future be more equitability principles governing evidences and presumptions by passing of some such laws?
The government has passed many administrative delegated to the ministers, government departments and statutory boards like HDB, BCA etc. These various laws are redefining and presuming responsibilities of flat-owners and dwellers in the case of faulty windows or lack of maintenance etc.
Under various Laws of parliament, government cannot be sued for losses or damages suffered by citizens. These areas of laws have already affected fairness and equitability principles so clearly established under the British common laws.
Because government plays such a big part in efficiency of govenment that such a process of passing more presumptuous administrative laws might have adversely affected people's aspirations to observe equitable rule of laws based on fairness and equitability at every strata of governance.
It is important going forward as part of the policy of openness and liberalization to limit the expanding discretion of judges as well as to limit the administrative powers given to acquire car park lands of a church at one dollar?
To ensure accountability and transparency the starting point will be the constitution which should be re-examined to incorporate the 7 points of true democracy as posted in this forum.
There will be a great deal of benefits and very little disadvantages to uphold and adopt the 7 points will help to establish rules of laws at all stratum of society and will help Singapore to establish itself firmly as the true home of all citizens who love equity and openness and transparency in the next phase of political development.
From the overall perspective of building a more competitive economy, to attract all kinds of talents to make Singapore succeed, it should proceed to establish and amalgamate various sources of laws of evidence and sentencing and subject them to greater vigour of checks and balances to avoid future uncertainties and problems? I feel an act of political will will be necessary to recognize the current problems and improve whole legal and judicial system to be more open up and accountable. -
To: Pikamaster,
Thank you very much indeed for your assistance in providing me with an easy access to the statutes of Singapore. I don't really need these but will refer to them as I move along should I need to in future.
-
Thanks for the link. Been wondering where I can read that. ThanksOriginally posted by pikamaster:All our laws are here :http://statutes.agc.gov.sg/
-
Is that a real fact that Laws of parliament, disallow parties from seeking damages from the government in relation to losses by citizens? Didn't expect that. It still bothers me how the HSA got away from liability in the Slim 10 case. Kinda defeats the purpose of having a government stamp of approval, if it means nothing more than a guide and not a guarantee.
-
I'd like to see you draw up a constitution that actualy works for the country
it ain't that easy brother. there's politics and a hell lot of complex behind-the-scenes stuff going on. ignorance is a bliss
-
Yes, there may be many complex issues and politics to consider in evolving perhaps continually a system of governance that will help us to attain the next level of economic competitiveness and improve our quality of life and social and cultural vibrancy as a nation.Originally posted by vito_corleone:I'd like to see you draw up a constitution that actualy works for the country
it ain't that easy brother. there's politics and a hell lot of complex behind-the-scenes stuff going on. ignorance is a bliss
The fact that issues are complex or solutions too difficult to work out should not, I hope be the reason for not trying.
After all, if our government has claimed to be the best or among the best in Asia, surely such complex issues will not be too much for them to handle.
If any citizen in giving a suggesion should be told to put up his solution to problems, why do we need a government in the first place. On the other hand, if anyone indeed can provide a constution that will work or any solutions to the problems posted here, he should perhaps be the true talent and to be paid the whole cabinet's salaries. -
Someone has not backed up his statements and arguments with legitimate information.
How interesting? Another CSJ? -
Don't ask your opinion also complain. Ask for suggestion also complain. You damn hard to please sia.
-
*yawns* To get support from people. Show examples, proof and give proper statistics.
I think we're short of people who gives examples and show proper statistics and that's why the quality of the jabber has gone down. -
Do u know why ppl dont support opposition?
They are not contesting the welfare of people.
They are contesting the political strength of PAP.
They look only at mistakes.
Not try to find solutions.
I think I said enough. -
Don't forget SDP's platform at GE 2001. They wanted a cap on foreign talent and greater protection for citizens' welfare.Originally posted by Nelstar:Do u know why ppl dont support opposition?
They are not contesting the welfare of people.
They are contesting the political strength of PAP.
They look only at mistakes.
Not try to find solutions.
I think I said enough. -
Nelstar, i have personally been educated in basic studies in canada and in Australia when i was n yr 12 and earlier. HOw many systems have u had the pleasure of seeing? The reason why i didn't want to answer u on that b4 was cos it is a sideline on the main discussion question. So how have u backed up on ur 99% of state laws.......? And why do want to have personal attacks here. Its an open discussion for all. The focus is on civil liability and and knowledge of civil rights. For ur information, basic law would cover common law and how it was created, basic criminal law and torts +contracts.
BUt i'm sure u already knew that. How has the wide jurisdiction of state laws impact on the individual. It covers sucha wide area, it is not necessary to know all. But it would be worth 2 cents more if u knew ur civil liability and what u can and cannot do in normal human and business interactions right? -
That is 2.
2 is many. You give me the pleasure to know that.
You're soooo funny. -
does 99% of the Americans know their state laws? I mean their state laws.Originally posted by RuffRider:Nelstar, i have personally been educated in basic studies in canada and in Australia when i was n yr 12 and earlier. HOw many systems have u had the pleasure of seeing? The reason why i didn't want to answer u on that b4 was cos it is a sideline on the main discussion question. So how have u backed up on ur 99% of state laws.......? And why do want to have personal attacks here. Its an open discussion for all. The focus is on civil liability and and knowledge of civil rights. For ur information, basic law would cover common law and how it was created, basic criminal law and torts +contracts.
BUt i'm sure u already knew that. How has the wide jurisdiction of state laws impact on the individual. It covers sucha wide area, it is not necessary to know all. But it would be worth 2 cents more if u knew ur civil liability and what u can and cannot do in normal human and business interactions right?
this is a question. i did not make any statement saying they do.
SEE you like to assume!
ASSUMPTIONS
ASSUMPTIONS!!!!
wow. Big talker. -
Ok... enough of putting down Ruffrider and disturbing him.
I just think that Ruffrider should change the number 99% to majority. -
Seriously, u critisize so much , but offer so little in it. I base my opions on observation. It is an open discussion. U have not put anything on the dinner table as of yet. If this forum is beneath u, u could always go somewhere else.
And u have not answered how knowing the state laws is of great use in a persons normal daily life. U enjoy innuendo and negative statements. BUt offer little. I ask questions in hope of finding ppl's opinions. I do not take an extreme side. Seriously, how have u effectively contributed to the discussion, other than proving citizen epathy? -
2 Countries is a lot more than u have experienced. I base my 99% as a high figure. That works out to 40000 ppl who knwo their rights. I hope it can only be more in the future. I do not talk as big as u however.
I do assume a lot in life, that is my flaw, however, not as much as u, as u have kindly shown. -
Originally posted by RuffRider:2 Countries is a lot more than u have experienced. I base my 99% as a high figure. That works out to 40000 ppl who knwo their rights. I hope it can only be more in the future. I do not talk as big as u however.
I do assume a lot in life, that is my flaw, however, not as much as u, as u have kindly shown. Thank you.