PM appoint the Chief Justice.Not only that, he also appoints high court judges in consultation with CJ.Since the judiciary is independent,CJ should appoint his judges.Why should PM do it for him?In this way,our judiciary is not totally  independent.

Poh, LHL, lky and PAP are in better position to answer the question.

The mere act of asking might invite a libel suit.

KUALA LUMPUR - Malaysian judges were sent to an indoctrination "boot camp" and threatened with dismissal to pressure them into making pro-government decisions, a senior judge said according to reports Wednesday.

In explosive allegations made in open court, Justice Ian Chin also said he was threatened by former premier Mahathir Mohamad over high-profile cases, one involving a close associate of the then-leader.

"Now, though he is no longer the prime minister and so no longer able to carry out his threat to remove judges, the coalition party that he led is still around," he said, according to the Borneo Post.

Chin made the allegations, which were picked up by the national press Wednesday, before hearing a dispute over results of March general elections in Sarawak state on Borneo island.

He said he was targeted by Mahathir after refusing to award "astronomical" payouts in two libel cases in 1997, while a judge who agreed with the then-premier's views was promoted to the Federal Court.

Afterwards, Chin reportedly said he was packed off to a five-day boot camp with selected judges and judicial officers.

It was without any doubt "an attempt to indoctrinate those attending the boot camp to hold the view that the government interest as being more important than all else when we are considering our judgement," he said.

Cabinet minister Zaid Ibrahim, who is in charge of legal affairs, indicated he believed the allegations, and that they would harm the reputation of the nation's justice system.

"I can't say I'm surprised by the revelations. There have been many stories in the past," he told reporters.

"It is regrettable that it has happened, it is a bad reflection on our country. We have to make sure it does not happen again," he said. "You should not tell judges what they can or cannot do."

However, he dismissed calls from the Bar Council for an official probe into the allegations.

"An investigation will not reveal anything more than what we know. What we need to do is restore judicial independence and make sure such incidents do not happen," he said.

Bar Council president Ambiga Sreenavasan said the allegations were "both startling and damning."

"Judges, both present and past, must be encouraged to come forward and provide information on any such instances of interference so that further action may be taken," she said according to the New Straits Times.

Mahathir stood down in 2003 and his successor Abdullah Ahmad Badawi has been criticised for failing to carry out his promises to tackle corruption, which is deeply entrenched in politics and business.

Chin's allegations add to the pall cast over the country's judiciary by a recent royal commission into a sensational Mahathir-era video clip that showed a top lawyer brokering judicial appointments with the help of politicians.

The commission found in May that there was evidence of an "insidious" conspiracy to influence the appointment of judges, and the government promised to investigate those implicated.

Mahathir, who has fallen out with his successor and accused him of corruption and nepotism, has previously challenged the authorities to charge him.

His spokesman told AFP the former premier would respond to Chin's comments "in due course." -

Judiciary is independent in normal cases, but when it comes to govt cases, it is seen as not independent as judges are beholden to the PM

t-_a_s,

Do u have a solution?

I believe almost all independent organisations engage their own staff themselves.Since the judiciary is independent,why should it be different?

PM can appoint ppl who are loyal & obedient to the govt and also his friends to be judges.If he did so, then he would tell them to work independently.Would it be an independent judiciary like that?  

CJ sat among the govt ministers during the National Day Rally.It seems he is the colleague of the ministers.

A few years ago, I understand oppositon MPs were not invited for the rallies.The rallies are attneded by many grassroot leaders who are of course PAP  supporters or members.Should CJ, who is from the independent judiciary, attend the rally?

The judiciary is independent.Why did  Ministry of Law instead of the judiciary rebut the comment made by an international law body?

I don't see how we can ever make the judiciary independent, so long as people in Singapore don't want to admit that there is a problem, and that they are stupid enough to buy the Government's completely illogical arguments defending our judiciary. At the end of the day, Singaporeans are just acting like they are in a tribe.

Originally posted by Fingolfin_Noldor:

I don't see how we can ever make the judiciary independent, so long as people in Singapore don't want to admit that there is a problem, and that they are stupid enough to buy the Government's completely illogical arguments defending our judiciary. At the end of the day, Singaporeans are just acting like they are in a tribe.

can't agree any less than you!

6 members besides me spoke on this topic.Not bad but not many.

Those who are fearful will treat this topic as taboo.

I doubt the judiciary system is independent.   It is possible that it be independent when there is a change in the ruling party.

100% not for political cases.

No worry!Nothing happen to me so far after I started this topic.

Is there anyone afraid to take part in the topic "LKY, when are you going to die?"It seems no one does. 

The govt should be glad there have been not many members speak on this topic.It can say that not many ppl are interested in this matter.

Steven Jacobi, of Fair Trials Abroad, said that while Singapore's criminal justice system was generally considered fair it did have a record of pursuing political enemies of the ruling party.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/low/asia-pacific/2324959.stm

i think our judiciary is as independent as our media! on some issues they are the pit bulls for the powers that be altho they shouldnt, on other issues they are fair. The Canadian court hinted so in the Enernorth case also.

Me stupid stupid wan. Nebbe study. Pak goli (marbles ) wan. But i have a stupid quesion.

How does one even define 'independence' in the independence of our judiciary, when

a. The CJ, head of the judiciary, is not voted or beholden to the electorate, other than being a lawyer and a citizen, nor be responsible for any fallout to our society other than to make a judgement based on our constitution?

b. the CJ, with due respect to his office, is only a human, a flawed being, with the imperfection of humanity, and not some supernatural higher plane entity?

c. Who else then, but the PM, who is head of the elected party, answerable to the citizens, with the implicit trust of a nation, can assign or select an 'independent' judiciary, carefully and meticuosly ensuring those whom made decisions based on life and death of citizens, are properly chosen?

d. Is there any other mechanism, in the case of political figures being on trial, to ensure such independence, or should the strength of evidences, reason and logic be sufficient for voters to comprehend the impartiality of a judgement passed down by the judge? 

When CJ and judges are appointed by PM,how can the judiciary be independent from the govt?I believe if the judiciary is truly independent,CJ should be chosen by the previous CJ  or a judiciary commission.