Our World Class Judiciary

Was perusing the Singapore section of the CNA website and came across 2 law-related reports.

Only in Singapore will you find the Chief Justice, Minister of Law and Attorney Gneral working on the same team (the Pedra Branca hearings which have begun in the Hague). And have no one bat an eyelid. I didn't think much of it either until my lecturer brought it up in SLS. What's wrong with having them on the same side in a situation such as this, where Singapore's national interests are at stake?

The rough answer would be that, practicalities aside, how will the bystander perceive such a close working relationship (which these men must no doubt have to present the case as a team) between individuals who are supposed to be from separate and independent branches of government?

And as a practical matter, shouldn't our Chief Justice be concerned with being the head of the judiciary and not part of a delegation to an international court? What would people say if John Roberts, or Jin's personal friend Michael Kirby for that matter, were to head to the ICJ to argue a case on behalf of their respective governments? Uniquely Singapore indeed.

The second article has the headline:

Supreme Court's rules apply to all despite political status: judges

Don't get your hopes up.

SINGAPORE : Rules and principles spelt out by Singapore's Supreme Court on making applications at different stages of a trial apply to all litigants.

This is regardless of their socio-economic or even political status.

Judges of the Court of Appeal made this point on Tuesday.

They had released their grounds of decision for dismissing an appeal by Singapore Democratic Party (SDP) leader Chee Soon Juan who wanted an extension of time to file his appeal against the summary judgement handed down in the case brought against him by Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong.

Mr Lee had sued the SDP leader for defaming him in an article about the National Kidney Foundation saga in the party's publication Democrat.

The three court judges, made up of Justices Andrew Phang, V K Rajah and Woo Bih Li, had dismissed Dr Chee's appeal with costs.

The judges stressed that if the rules and principles were not observed and if they were abused, it would result in arbitrariness and "palm tree justice" which meant making decisions solely on the particular circumstances of each case.

They also noted in their grounds that Dr Chee had failed to satisfactorily explain why he did absolutely nothing for close to seven months although the evidence clearly showed that he had already decided to appeal against the judge's decision on the summary judgement.

I am but a year one law student, I STUDY the judgements of Andrew Phang and V K Rajah, but really, WHAT EXACTLY does Chee Soon Juan's political status have to do with their reasoning for dismissing his appeal?

It's ironic that the court is suggesting an opposition leader should not be getting favorable treatment from the bench, when in fact, history has shown time and again that this is antithetical to the truth.

I mean, seriously, has a government minister EVER lost a defamation suit against an opposition member? And why is it that in more than 40 years since independence, the Singapore Courts have not once held any law introduced by the government to be unconstitutional, when in fact we do have (believe it or not) a constitution granting equal protection to individuals, as well as the right to freedom of speech and freedom of assembly?

World class judiciary indeed.