Obviously the CJ does not believe what he says.
maybe it's just an aspiration?
and why the likes of CSJ were never there in such conferences to rebuke his statements in public to make him malu??
a wasted opportunity..one stone can kill two birds...
CJ rebuts the critics
05:55 AM Oct 28, 2009
SINGAPORE - Some have alleged that Singapore pays just lip service to the rule of law; others question the independence of its judges.
Chief Justice Chan Sek Keong, addressing such criticisms yesterday, made it clear: "Political authority must be exercised subject to, and in accordance with, the law," he told his audience at the New York State Bar Association seasonal meeting held here.
There are those who have claimed a lack of judicial independence in Singapore, based on how the courts here have decided in favour of government ministers in defamation cases against foreign media and opposition politicians, CJ Chan noted.
Given the list of constitutional safeguards that Supreme Court judges here are afforded - their pay and tenure are protected by the Constitution, and they cannot be removed except by a minimum of five of his or her peers - such allegations must be referring to judges as individuals rather than the system.
"(They) would have to be referable to one, some, or all of the 18 judges and judicial commissioners. 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," CJ Chan said.
The judges' judgments and reasons for their decisions, both of which are made public, would speak for themselves, he added.
Turning to Singapore's stand on defamation - which Law Minister K Shanmugam also touched on a day earlier, with the same audience - the Chief Justice described defamation law as being about balancing the value of free speech and the value of reputation in a democracy.
"How this balance is to be struck depends on the political, social, and cultural values of each society as reflected in its laws. These values differ from society to society, and at different times of their development," he said, pointing to how in England, for instance, qualified privilege is conferred on discussion on matters of public interest, but the test of qualified privilege is different in the United States, Australia and New Zealand.
Hence, critics of the Singapore courts may have "missed the point", for they are really criticising them for reflecting society's values.
Contempt of court is another legal limit on how far free expression can go.
CJ Chan cited the recent case where three people, wearing T-shirts with a picture of a kangaroo in judge's robes, walked into the courthouse while there was a hearing involving an opposition party member.
"In Singapore, 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," he said.
maybe it's just an aspiration?
and why the likes of CSJ were never there in such conferences to rebuke his statements in public to make him malu??
a wasted opportunity..one stone can kill two birds...
CJ rebuts the critics
05:55 AM Oct 28, 2009
SINGAPORE - Some have alleged that Singapore pays just lip service to the rule of law; others question the independence of its judges.
Chief Justice Chan Sek Keong, addressing such criticisms yesterday, made it clear: "Political authority must be exercised subject to, and in accordance with, the law," he told his audience at the New York State Bar Association seasonal meeting held here.
There are those who have claimed a lack of judicial independence in Singapore, based on how the courts here have decided in favour of government ministers in defamation cases against foreign media and opposition politicians, CJ Chan noted.
Given the list of constitutional safeguards that Supreme Court judges here are afforded - their pay and tenure are protected by the Constitution, and they cannot be removed except by a minimum of five of his or her peers - such allegations must be referring to judges as individuals rather than the system.
"(They) would have to be referable to one, some, or all of the 18 judges and judicial commissioners. 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," CJ Chan said.
The judges' judgments and reasons for their decisions, both of which are made public, would speak for themselves, he added.
Turning to Singapore's stand on defamation - which Law Minister K Shanmugam also touched on a day earlier, with the same audience - the Chief Justice described defamation law as being about balancing the value of free speech and the value of reputation in a democracy.
"How this balance is to be struck depends on the political, social, and cultural values of each society as reflected in its laws. These values differ from society to society, and at different times of their development," he said, pointing to how in England, for instance, qualified privilege is conferred on discussion on matters of public interest, but the test of qualified privilege is different in the United States, Australia and New Zealand.
Hence, critics of the Singapore courts may have "missed the point", for they are really criticising them for reflecting society's values.
Contempt of court is another legal limit on how far free expression can go.
CJ Chan cited the recent case where three people, wearing T-shirts with a picture of a kangaroo in judge's robes, walked into the courthouse while there was a hearing involving an opposition party member.
"In Singapore, 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," he said.
