Singapore Chief Justice: No basis for allegations that Singapore’s judiciary lacks independence
October 28th, 2009 | 
Author: From our Correspodent
Singapore’s Chief Justice Chan Sek Keong has lambasted at allegations made about judicial independence in Singapore by some individuals and groups, including the US State Department in its 2008 Human Rights Report.
His remarks on judicial independence came in his keynote speech to the New York State Bar Association International Section. It was also attended by Singapore Law Minister K Shanmugam, Attonery-General Walter Woon and Minister in Prime Minister’s Office Lim Hwee Hua.
“What is the basis of these allegations? From what I have read, they consist of bare and recycled reports about ‘executive influence over the judiciary’, whatever that means,’ he said, using a term in the State Department’s report.
Some are based on the courts deciding in favour of government ministers in defamation cases against opposition politicians and the foreign media,” he said.
CJ Chan said that every Supreme Court judge takes an oath to protect and defend the Constitution before assuming office, he said.
Addressing an often-raised accusation of executive interference in the judiciary here, he told his audience of lawyers:
“It is not an oath to protect and defend the President, the legislature or the executive; it is an oath to protect and defend the Constitution.”
The Singapore Constitution guarantees basic freedoms of assembly and speech for Singapore citizens under Article IV, Section 14. However, they are seldom practiced in reality.
CJ Chan justified the recent conviction of three Singaporeans who entered the Supreme Court wearing T-shirts depicting a kangaroo in judge’s robes whilst a defamation case against an opposition politician was on.
One of them, SDP’s Assistant Secretary-General John Tan was jailed for two weeks for a “crime” which would probably not attracted much attention in other modern democracies.
“You may criticise any person or institution in any way you like provided you do not cross the line as laid down by law. And people in Singapore do freely criticise the Government, its ministers and public institutions, including the courts,” explained Mr Chan to the audience of American audience.
On the liberal use of defamation lawsuits to cripple the opposition, Mr Chan said that “those who drafted the Constitution here placed ‘a higher social value on reputation than on free speech, where they conflict’.”
‘The law of defamation is really about balancing the value of free speech and the value of reputation in a democratic society,’ he said.
CJ Chan said that how this balance is to be struck would depend on the political, social and cultural values of a place. This differed from society to society and at different times of their development.
“It may be the case that the critics have missed the point, and that criticising the Singapore courts is really criticising them for recognising the political, social and cultural values of Singapore society as expressed in its laws,” he said.
After being admitted to the Bar on 31 January 1962, CJ Chan practiced for a number of years before being appointed the first Judicial Commissioner of Singapore on 1 July 1986. Two years later, he became a Judge of the Supreme Court of Singapore and in 1992, he was appointed Attorney-General of Singapore.
CJ Chan was embroiled in a controversial case involving the PAP ministers in 1997 when he was the Attorney-General of Singapore.
During the 1997 General Elections, then Senior Minister Mr Goh Chok Tong and his two deputies Dr Tony Tan and Mr Lee Hsien Loong gained entry into a Cheng San GRC polling station, all of whom were not candidates for Cheng San GRC.
Section 82(1) of the Parliamentary Elections Act reads:
“No person shall wait outside any polling station on polling day, except for the purpose of gaining entry to the polling station to cast his vote. No person shall loiter in any street or public place within a radius of 200 metres of any polling station on polling day.”
The Worker’s Party candidate for Cheng San J.B. Jeyaretnam lodged a complaint the alleged “transgression”.
Attorney-General Chan Sek Keong ruled that there wasn’t any violation of the act on the part of the PAP MPs because they were within the 200 metre boundary of the polling station. The act explicitly stated that those outside the radius were in violation, but it wasn’t applicable to those within the radius.
Kelvin Teo from independent NUS online daily Kent Ridge Common commented:
“Observers found Chan’s opinion befuddling. Obviously, one would have to be initially outside the 200 metres radius before gaining entry into it.”
[Source: Kent Ridge Common]
The case was reported briefly by the press minus the legal details and was never heard again.
Related articles:
>> CJ (then AG) Chan Sek Keong’s letter to Law Minister Jayakumar in 1997
>> Shanmugam peeved at Singapore media’s pathetic rankings on the World Press Freedom Index
>> Correcting Minister Shanmugam’s misperception that Singapore is a “stable democracy”
EDITORS’ NOTE:
If you like our work and would like to support us, please transfer your donations via paypal to our account ([email protected]). Any amount will be greatly appreciated! Alternatively, you can also help boost our advertising revenue by clicking on the ads displayed. Thank you!
Join our tweet at: http://www.twitter.com/temasekreview
Posted in Editorial
I am more than 99% confidence of his claims.
But I am always looking to improve the 1% lack.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
My advice to the Judiciary: Wipe the slate clean and come clean. Singaporeans are not stupid or ignorant anymore. You are not beholden to any political party including that which is in power. You live life once and only once. But your name lives on in eternity.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Always make sure that your children can be proud of you. Never sell your soul for money. Only then will you be able to sleep soundly at night.
“You may fool all the people some of the time, you can even fool some of the people all of the time, but you cannot fool all of the people all the time.”
Abraham Lincoln quotes (American 16th US President (1861-65), who brought about the emancipation of the slaves. 1809-1865)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Chan was fine as an AG, ok as a CJ, still better than the Yoong.
But Judicial Independance, he will have to do much much better.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Getting Away with Murder in Malaysia
On July 16, according to the testimony of a Thai pathologist, Teoh Beng Hock, a 29-year-old aide to an opposition politician, was probably beaten during a marathon questioning session, sodomized, strangled unconscious, dragged to a window of the Malaysia Anti-Corruption Commission in Kuala Lumpur and thrown to his death.
The country’s law enforcement establishment maintains that Teoh committed suicide by leaping from the MACC building after the inquiry was concluded into irregularities in his boss’s accounts. But it is far from the first “suicide” in custody and what happened to Teoh happens all too frequently when the luckless collide with the powerful in Malaysia. His real killers are unlikely ever to be identified. As many as 350 people have died in custody since 1990. The privileged are rarely brought to trial.
The most infamous recent case before Teoh’s is that of Altantuya Shaariibuu, a 28 year-old Mongolian translator who was murdered in 2006 by two bodyguards of then-Deputy Prime Minister Najib Tun Razak. Altantuya had been jilted by Najib’s best friend, Abdul Razak Baginda, and was demanding money from him.
Although numerous witnesses and evidence connected Najib to the affair, he was never questioned or put on the witness stand, nor was his chief of staff, Musa Safri, who Baginda said in a cautioned statement he approached about getting Altantuya from ceasing her harrassment. His two bodyguards were convicted of the murder although one, in his confession, said the two men were to be paid RM100,000 to kill her. The court never asked who would pay the money. The confession wasn’t allowed in court. Baginda was acquitted without having to put on a defense and promptly left the country and Najib was eventually named Prime Minister.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
万般带不去，唯有业随身。
Bring their ugly character and money to face God, eventually.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Hahaha….MIW Legal Department chief talking about “judicial independance”.
Read IBA scathing 72-page report on S’pore’s judicial affair at:
http://www.ibanet.org/Article/Detail.aspx?ArticleUid=0081C460-4B39-4ACB-BB40-8303FCEFDB31
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
He was appointed by mm lky team for a reason. I dont think he will do anything against the interest of mm lky team.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
How many people do you think really believes Chan Sek Keong?
That will always be the final litmus test.
What he thinks is not important. Of course he is free to express his opinion on the subject. Only he should be mature enough to realise not every educated and thinking person may agree with his take.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Was he the one who blew the candle off for MM in one of MM’s birthday celebration or someone else??? Not very sure?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I wonder if there is such a term call judicial bully. Do you think it is possible to use the law to bully people with lesser resource?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
If the truth hurts, tell lies until it became the truth that Singaporeans believe it. Singapore Judiciary system fell in this line.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
If the constitution can be amended by the PAPies in Parliament since the hold all but 2 seats, then defending the consitution = defend PAP.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Whatever you do and say now, your grandchildren will eventually read about it in Singapore history. If “Pau today” (the black face administrator) is still alive, he would probably send some of them off the see the God of Hell.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
CSK promoted very fast. Because he work very well for the Hotel New World Collaspe Case.He is next to Wong Kan Seng singing all his way, Our Judicial System Is very Transparent.
For the past forty years PAP or LKY had never lose a case.
Remember Dr Chee case, in front of the Judge (Belinda Ang)
he shouted: I call U a Liar, Cheater. Sex Maniace, U can sue me! Why: he is so self-confident. Court is su-sided.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Isn’t Chan Sek Keong the ultimate xxx who give the nonsensical ruling over the polling area where by the ruling seems to mean “If incumbent echelon commits a crime, it is not a crime if it already committed !”
“appointed the first Judicial Commissioner of Singapore on 1 July 1986. Two years later, he became a Judge of the Supreme Court of Singapore and in 1992, he was appointed Attorney-General of Singapore. As Attorney General, he submitted in 1997 that although the Parliamentary Elections Act forbade unauthorised persons to loiter within 200 metres of polling stations on polling day, this did not apply to unauthorised persons ‘inside’ said stations. This was in response to the Workers’ Party’s complaint that People’s Action Party members were loitering in polling stations, contrary to the provisions of that Act. He relinquished the position on 11 April 2006, when he was appointed Chief Justice of the Republic of Singapore.”
http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/topics/Chan_Sek_Keong
Nonsensical Reply from the none other than the himself.
“7. Section 82 (1)(d) provides that – “No person shall wait outside any polling station on polling day, except for the purpose of gaining entry to the polling station to cast his vote”.
8. Plainly, persons found waiting inside the polling stations do not come within the ambit of this section. Similarly, those who enter or have entered the polling station cannot be said to be waiting outside it. Only those who wait outside the polling station commit an offence under this section unless they are waiting to enter the polling station to cast their votes.”
From http://www.singapore-window.org/ag0721.htm
This will greatly prove that “Singapore’s judiciary lacks independence” especially when it comes to politics and entrenching of power. Fancy using a man that give PAP leeders such great favour will even shamelessly dare to remark about independence of judiciary ?
This past xxx of Chan Sek Keong will come to haunt him and PAP forever. One can never escape from the truth and
history.
Can TR publish the letter from
http://www.singapore-window.org/ag0721.htm ?
Wisdom from the Animal World
===========================================
Kangaroo will always be a kangaroo no matter how they disguise it.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Still dare to argue. Shameless!!
I can recall so many unfair, unjust cases: The case of TangLH & JBJ, Francis Seow, son of Judge on drug, SPH lady whom hit (killed) and run, poor lady whom knock down ang-mo CEO, blah, blah, blah, blah
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
We know fully well he has no choice but to defend and defend and defend, going on the defensive all the time.
If one is not guilty, why defend so vigorously?
It is the unspoken words that actually tell the truth.
People are not that stupid nowadays. We know how to read in between the lines. We know the background of those who climbed up the staircases. We know the connections. It is all about networks and networking. In this Internet Age, networking is a common knowledge.
It always takes two hands to clap, isn’t it?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I would give my right arm for a judge with actual ethics and integrity on the Singapore bench. Sadly, such judges last as long as a moth drawn towards the flame of Lee.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
The whole judiciary system is used to ‘fix’ opposition.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Boo on Wed, 28th Oct 2009 11:16 am
Thanks for the link.
I guess no words are necessary. The report says it all.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
judges in singapore know which side of the bread is buttered … chief justice of singapore is not lifetime appointment, renewal of his contract depend on the gahmen
cannot blame him for saying this, he just wants to keep his ricebowl
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
someone pls tell him : mai gong liang chau wei
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Singapore’s Judiciary is lost cause. You want to show the world you are not biased, then shoot down the stupid appeal of the AG chambers to convict 5 Singaporeans walking peaceful along pedestrian path wearing same T-shirt.
Alas! Singapore’s Judiciary cannot assume that the rest of the world are IDIOTS. The reputation of world-class institutions like the IBA and RSF says it all.
Now where is the PAP supporter BryanT? Defend please …
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
“Chan Sek Keong has lambasted at allegations ”
chan should ask someone to sue those who alleged.
But would he ask someone to sue the US State Department for the 2008 Human Rights Report ?
since there is no Basis for allegations should someone sue the mighty United States department?
I wonder.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
““Observers found Chan’s opinion befuddling. Obviously, one would have to be initially outside the 200 metres radius before gaining entry into it.””
How many singaporeans are aware of this issue happened in the past?
I curious to know what their view is on this. Sadly, they may not be reached.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
dom the clown on Wed, 28th Oct 2009 11:37 am
“How many people do you think really believes Chan Sek Keong?”
Not you perhaps but the INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE
believes him 101% and Pulau Batu Puteh remains forever Pedra Branca.
dom the clown – what are your credentials? What have you done for Singapore short of talking cock all day long.
Please look at your face in the mirror before u open your BIG empty mouth first.
Btw, the circus hasn’t come to town yet. Sorri, no jobs for clowns here . . . hee.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
//kang kuan tew
I am saddened by your ‘ignorance’, the 66% problem?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
the day it arrives, the election dept must independently function out of the PM office.
the judiciary and the law society must be reinstated and held honourably by men and woman to remove all unjust laws to return its democratic rights for its citizens…
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Ridiculous! This, coming from the very man who is living proof to the very fact of a xxx, who was once attorney-general before becoming CJ, and here he is, asserting that there’s no basis? that’s what, and he still thinks it appropriate to question the evidence! Of course there isn’t any need to look around for a basis. It’s SO obvious he’s independent, isn’t it? But then again, it’s not like there’s anything new about that, is there? Mr Michael Hwang must be either laughing uproariously or so utterly disgusted at this most blatant of xxx from a ‘top’ legal eagle that he might have a stroke, the poor man. For my part, I feel ready to vomit blood. Is this the quality of Singapore lawyers, that they can make the most unbelievable xxx and think they can get away with it?
And what about criticism being allowed without ‘crossing the law’? Who lays down the law?
The PAP, obviously!
And who has a stronghold on how the law should be interpreted? The PAP, obviously!
And who acts illegitimately even if the constitution explicitly stops them from doing so?
The PAP, obviously!
Why, sometimes I wonder why they need to control the judiciary, when they’re the ones acting against the law to begin with. The law can’t protect us now, friends.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Does it mean, if we are inside the polling station, it is no longer an offense to loiter inside?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Opps. Okay I understand now after reading the singapore window site.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
ok ok.. anyone know if the kangaroo t-shirt got L size? pasar malam got sell anot?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0