Judicial independence: A tale of two countries
OPINION
On 26 September 2009, the Straits Times published a scathing criticism of Taiwan’s judiciary entitled – “Taiwan’s judiciary has some way to go”.
Using the corruption trial of ex-Taiwanese president Chen Shui Bian as an example, Straits Times columnist Ho Ai Li commented that “Taiwan’s judiciary has some way to go before it is seen to be independent and fair.”
Ho pointed out the deficiencies in Taiwan’s judicial system such as the prolonged detention of Chen before he was formally charged and sentenced in court and the leakage of information about the investigations to the media.
Both Ho and the Straits Times must consider themselves lucky that they are able to criticize the Taiwanese judiciary so freely and openly without being charged for “contempt of court”.
Had they tried to repeat the same allegations against the Singapore judiciary, Ho will probably find herself behind bars by now.
In September 2008, former Singaporean lawyer Gopalan Nair was sentenced to three months jail after he was found guilty of insulting a High Court judge in a posting on his blog.
He was charged with insulting Justice Belinda Ang in a blog posting on May 29. It was posted online shortly after he attended a three-day court hearing over which she had presided.
In December 2008, three Singaporeans were charged with contempt of court for showing up at Singapore’s Supreme Court wearing T-shirts depicting kangaroos in judges robes.
Isrizal Bin Mohamed Isa and Muhammad Shafi’ie Syahmi Bin Sariman were sentenced to seven days’ jail, while Tan Liang Joo John received 15 days imprisonment. They were each ordered to pay S$5,000 ($3,305) in costs.
The three had worn the T-shirts at a court hearing in May to determine the damages that Chee Soon Juan and his sister Chee Siok Chin were to pay after being found guilty of defaming Singapore Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong and former leader Lee Kuan Yew.
Singapore’s attorney-general said in bringing the case to court the trio had “scandalized the Singapore judiciary.”
Four months later, a Wall Street Journal editor was ordered by a Singapore court to pay a fine of S$10,000 (US$6,600) for contempt of court, following a fine last year against the newspaper for the same three articles at issue.
The Attorney-General Chambers said the three articles, published separately from June to July 2008 in the Wall Street Journal Asia, “impugn the impartiality, integrity and independence of the Singapore Judiciary”.
Nowhere else in the developed world do we see such harsh sentences being meted down in similar cases of “contempt of court”.
In a damning report released in 2008, the International Bar Associationi HUman Rights Institute (IBAHRI) expressed concern about limitations on the freedoms of expression, assembly, and the press, and of the independence of the judiciary in Singapore. (Source: IBAHRI)
The IBAHRI has identified a number of areas in which Singapore falls far short of international standards. In particular, democratic debate and media comment are extremely restricted and government officials have initiated numerous successful defamation suits against both political and media critics.
Singapore was also ranked a dismal 19th in judicial independence by the World Economic Forum recently which was considered as a “competitive disadvantage”.
Neither IBAHRI nor WEF were charged for “contempt of court”.
The Taiwanese judiciary may not be perfect, but at least it is one which allows itself to be scrutinized and criticized by the public.
The trial of Chen had provoked strong reactions from his staunch supporters, some of whom even slammed the prosecutors for being “KMT stooges”. However, none of them was ever hauled up by the Taiwanese judiciary for casting doubts on its integrity.
The series of punitive actions taken by the Singapore judiciary to punish its critics will only serve to snuff out public discourse about its role in society.
There is a very thin line between well-meaning criticism and outright slander. Even in the case of Gopalan Nair, he is only expressing a personal opinion on his blog which is read by few Singaporeans.
Differing and dissenting views are a mirror for one to reflect on one’s flaws and deficiencies for no system is perfect in real life.
Public confidence and trust is built slowly over time and not through punishing a few detractors to send a warning to others to toe the line.
Singaporeans are able to distinguish right and wrong for themselves. It is impossible for any institution to impose its world view upon others by eradicating criticisms against it altogether.
It is sad that while Singapore journalists, academics and lawyers are able to comment freely on the judiciaries of other countries, they are reluctant to study or scrutinize their own out of fear of possible reprisals and our society will become poorer as a result.
Loading ...
Anonymous on Sat, 24th Oct 2009 10:47 am
Wonder if Taiwan got detention without trial just for comparison – thinking of operation Coldstore and Operation Spectrum?
Wondered what Ho Ai Li has of forceful opinion in this regard?
anonymous on Sat, 24th Oct 2009 1:49 pm
Read this review and judge yourself if ours is independent and just.
=================================
Pacific Affairs
Fall 2008: Vol 81, Number 3
ProQuest Asian Business and Reference pg. 494
BEYOND SUSPICION? The Singapore Judiciary By Francis T. Seow
Review by Dr Michael D Barr
Flinders University, Australia
FRANCIS Seow’s third book is a savage and unmerciful critique of Singapore’s judicial system. He provides convincing evidence that the Singapore court system is basically the play-thing of former Prime Minister (currently Minister Mentor) Lee Kuan Yew, through which he toys with and destroys his enemies at his leisure; corrupting the Bench, the legal profession, the police and the profession of journalism on the way through. The case presented by Seow – which is overwhelming drawn from the intimate detail of a single legal battle – demonstrates beyond reasonable doubt that Singapore is at heart a corrupt dictatorship separated from Third World dictatorships primarily by its national income and the cleverness of the techniques by which it manipulates institutional power.
It is a damning indictment that could have been much more powerful if Seow had resisted the temptation to indulge in childish name calling and heavy-handed didacticism. These acts of self-indulgence dominate the first part of the book and are never far away in the rest. Their main impact, as far as I can see, is to give defenders of the Singapore system and of Lee Kuan Yew the excuse they need to dismiss the book as ‘just another anti-Singapore rant’. Seow’s arrogant style was probably perfected while he was part of the system he is now critiquing (having been Lee’s choice for the position of Solicitor-General in the 1980s), but if the reader can put these defects aside it will become clear that this is a deeply disturbing story of manipulative and duplicitous behaviour on the part of Lee Kuan Yew as he set out to use a quiescent judicial and legal fraternity to destroy an innocent man, along with his wife and his lawyer.
The man in question is Tang Liang Hong who had the temerity to question the procedure by which Lee Kuan Yew and other notables (including his son and the current prime minister, Lee Hsien Loong), were cleared of any suggestion of impropriety when they accepted million dollar discounts from a property developer. Much of the book is concerned with the political and public relations machinations by which Tang was caught up in Lee’s web of retaliation, but in this review it must be sufficient to relay just a few of the most salient facts to give the reader a sense of the book.
For instance, what are we to make of a legal system that gives a defendant a couple of hours (literally) to find a solicitor, a translator (since she could speak no English), and prepare and present a defence in court to a procedure about which she had literally no understanding? Or where a judge sits in judgement on a case where he himself is implicated as a recipient of one of the real estate discounts that started the whole procedure, and who had previously worked for the family law firm of the primary litigant (Lee Kuan Yew)? Or where a judge (not the same judge) can receive many sets of documents, each hundreds of pages thick and so badly copied and paginated as to substantially illegible and unreadable, and yet two and a half hours later bring down a legal judgement based on his considered legal interpretation of the implications of their contents? Or where a summons to chambers is issued by an appellant’s lawyers rather than by the court, but the court upholds it? Or where evidence that proves beyond all reasonable doubt the innocence of the defendant is not only refused admission in court, but all record of its existence is expunged from the record?
Seow has drawn primarily on court documents for his evidence, having been supplied with a complete set (included documents later expunged from the record) by Tang Liang Hong, who is now a de facto exile from Singapore. Fully the last third of the volume is occupied by transcriptions of some of the most damning court documents, including a fair sample of documents where Lee Kuan Yew and his allies condemn themselves by their own words. (Seow delights in using Lee’s own words to demonstrate his capriciousness and duplicity. At one point he was even able to cite Lee as his primary source to sustain his charge that Lee was the arch-manipulator of the proceedings. Seow tends to overplay his hand when using this technique, but Lee’s arrogance and peremptory choice of words do rather lend themselves to ridicule.)
This is a powerful book, but it could have been much more.
Dr Barr :
Lecturer in International Relations, School of Political and International Studies, Flinders University
School Director of Studies (B.A)
School Ethics Research Adviser
Deputy Chair, Faculty of Social Sciences Undergraduate Standing Committee.