Guardian angel of the Leegime? 
<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR>Chees deserved jail terms for their conduct in court: Judge
</TR><!-- headline one : end --><!-- show image if available --></TBODY></TABLE>
<!-- START OF : div id="storytext"--><!-- more than 4 paragraphs -->THE way Chee Soon Juan and Chee Siok Chin behaved at a court hearing to assess damages for having defamed two Singapore leaders 'deserved to be punished with nothing less than imprisonment', said Justice Belinda Ang yesterday.
She was giving the grounds for her decision to jail the Singapore Democratic Party chief for 12 days and his sister, a member of the party's central executive committee, 10 days for contempt of court - sentences they served in June.
Justice Ang found them guilty of openly disobeying court orders in a way that interfered with the administration of justice, and of scandalising the court.
If left unchecked, the Chees' defiance of court orders and assertions that the court was biased could undermine public confidence in the judiciary andimpair the administration of justice, she said.
Jail terms were also appropriate as their actions were deliberate, she added.
Although the Chees were told the courtroom was not the proper forum for them to raise political questions that had nothing to do with the assessment of damages, 'they did not care', she noted.
'They indulged in 'soapbox tactics' by making political speeches not for the purposes of the judicial decision to be made, but for the purposes of playing to the public gallery, local and foreign media as well as foreign interest groups which have been following this well-publicised case.'
She said the Chees did not dispute what they had said at the hearing, but there was also no retraction or apology from either of them.
The SDP chief, she noted, had also applied for the contempt proceedings to be heard by another judge to avoid any perception of bias.
But Justice Ang turned it down, and in explaining her decision yesterday, said what happened at the proceedings was unlikely to be fully appreciated by another judge. Also, the facts were not disputed.
She further noted the Chees had sought to recycle 'the scandalous suggestion that Singapore judges are incapable of discharging their judicial duties impartially when it comes to defamation cases involving, on one side, members of the ruling party (the People's Action Party) and, on the other side, members of the opposition party'.
'It is easy to question judicial independence and impartiality, but, at the end of the day, the accusation has to be backed up by hard evidence; otherwise, it will naturally collapse,' she said. 'For my part, I can confidently assert that cases heard before me - and the present actions are no different - are considered and decided solely on their legal and factual merits,' she added.
<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR>Chees deserved jail terms for their conduct in court: Judge
</TR><!-- headline one : end --><!-- show image if available --></TBODY></TABLE>
<!-- START OF : div id="storytext"--><!-- more than 4 paragraphs -->THE way Chee Soon Juan and Chee Siok Chin behaved at a court hearing to assess damages for having defamed two Singapore leaders 'deserved to be punished with nothing less than imprisonment', said Justice Belinda Ang yesterday.
She was giving the grounds for her decision to jail the Singapore Democratic Party chief for 12 days and his sister, a member of the party's central executive committee, 10 days for contempt of court - sentences they served in June.
Justice Ang found them guilty of openly disobeying court orders in a way that interfered with the administration of justice, and of scandalising the court.
If left unchecked, the Chees' defiance of court orders and assertions that the court was biased could undermine public confidence in the judiciary andimpair the administration of justice, she said.
Jail terms were also appropriate as their actions were deliberate, she added.
Although the Chees were told the courtroom was not the proper forum for them to raise political questions that had nothing to do with the assessment of damages, 'they did not care', she noted.
'They indulged in 'soapbox tactics' by making political speeches not for the purposes of the judicial decision to be made, but for the purposes of playing to the public gallery, local and foreign media as well as foreign interest groups which have been following this well-publicised case.'
She said the Chees did not dispute what they had said at the hearing, but there was also no retraction or apology from either of them.
The SDP chief, she noted, had also applied for the contempt proceedings to be heard by another judge to avoid any perception of bias.
But Justice Ang turned it down, and in explaining her decision yesterday, said what happened at the proceedings was unlikely to be fully appreciated by another judge. Also, the facts were not disputed.
She further noted the Chees had sought to recycle 'the scandalous suggestion that Singapore judges are incapable of discharging their judicial duties impartially when it comes to defamation cases involving, on one side, members of the ruling party (the People's Action Party) and, on the other side, members of the opposition party'.
'It is easy to question judicial independence and impartiality, but, at the end of the day, the accusation has to be backed up by hard evidence; otherwise, it will naturally collapse,' she said. 'For my part, I can confidently assert that cases heard before me - and the present actions are no different - are considered and decided solely on their legal and factual merits,' she added.
