- Joined
- Jul 24, 2008
- Messages
- 33,627
- Points
- 0
<TABLE id=msgUN border=0 cellSpacing=3 cellPadding=0 width="100%"><TBODY><TR><TD id=msgUNsubj vAlign=top>
Coffeeshop Chit Chat - The 2faces of KangarooCourt in Sinkapore</TD><TD id=msgunetc noWrap align=right>
Subscribe </TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE><TABLE class=msgtable cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width="96%"><TBODY><TR><TD class=msg vAlign=top><TABLE border=0 cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width="100%"><TBODY><TR class=msghead><TD class=msgbfr1 width="1%"> </TD><TD><TABLE border=0 cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0><TBODY><TR class=msghead><TD class=msgF width="1%" noWrap align=right>From: </TD><TD class=msgFname width="68%" noWrap>Fkapore <NOBR></NOBR> </TD><TD class=msgDate width="30%" noWrap align=right>Oct-23 7:43 pm </TD></TR><TR class=msghead><TD class=msgT height=20 width="1%" noWrap align=right>To: </TD><TD class=msgTname width="68%" noWrap>ALL <NOBR></NOBR></TD><TD class=msgNum noWrap align=right> (1 of 4) </TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE></TD></TR><TR><TD class=msgleft rowSpan=4 width="1%"> </TD><TD class=wintiny noWrap align=right>23188.1 </TD></TR><TR><TD height=8></TD></TR><TR><TD class=msgtxt>Judicial independence: A tale of two countries
October 24, 2009 by admin01
Filed under Opinion
Leave a comment Temasek Review
OPINION
On 26 September 2009, the Straits Times published a scathing criticism of Taiwan¡¦s judiciary entitled ¡V ¡§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 court also ordered Melanie Kirkpatrick, deputy editor of the Wall Street Journal¡¦s editorial page, to pay legal costs of S$10,000,
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.
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
October 24, 2009 by admin01
Filed under Opinion
Leave a comment Temasek Review
OPINION
On 26 September 2009, the Straits Times published a scathing criticism of Taiwan¡¦s judiciary entitled ¡V ¡§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 court also ordered Melanie Kirkpatrick, deputy editor of the Wall Street Journal¡¦s editorial page, to pay legal costs of S$10,000,
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.
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
