Bending the Judiciary - are there paralles ? replied by Atobe @ Sun, 15 Jun 2008 23:50:42 +0800

Atobe — Sun, 15 Jun 2008 23:50:42 +0800

Originally posted by PRP:

Judicial interferences are done secretely/privately.The public wouldn't know unless those involved divulge it. So any judicial interferences in S'pore?Heaven knows!

Unlike some judges in the "First World Countries", there are some in the Malaysian Judiciary who do not need ''million $$$ crutch'' to help keep them from being corrupt.

With nothing substantial in material or financial amounts to lose, and a more independent judiciary to gain nfrom such revelations - surely this is incentive enough for the Judges to clean up the political rot that is affecting their conscience.

There are still honorable Judges in Third World Countries that possess a sense of simple honest pride in getting the job done to serve the community - that has placed their trust and confidence in these Judges to protect their interests when the politicians have abandoned this basic value for the sake of pursuing $$$$.

Bending the Judiciary - are there paralles ? replied by PRP @ Sun, 15 Jun 2008 21:15:24 +0800

PRP — Sun, 15 Jun 2008 21:15:24 +0800

Judicial interferences are done secretely/privately.The public wouldn't know unless those involved divulge it. So any judicial interferences in S'pore?Heaven knows!

Bending the Judiciary - are there paralles ? replied by Atobe @ Sun, 15 Jun 2008 15:09:09 +0800

Atobe — Sun, 15 Jun 2008 15:09:09 +0800

Originally posted by DeerHunter:

Do continue to spew rubbish from your bin. You only serve my purpose to prove what a real fool you are with the straws you grab. Some fools like you are destined to remain fools. The more you talk, the more foolish you are. Do continue. I only need to sit back and laugh at your silly antics.

Yes, fools are surely destined to remain as fools - especially those who feel embarrass not to be seen to look like fools arguing with no way of extricating from his fixed position - but will continue to argue to salvage what little is left of a foolish look.

Did you return by choice to embarrass yourself to look like a fool in the way you argue your position, or were you simply unable to walk away feeling sore in getting rubbed like an ass ?

Those are very expensive straws that you claimed I am grabbing - they cost $27 Billion in total and was a result of your imaginery trade between China and Singapore in some mysterious account that is by your fantasy said to be ''BOTH WAYS''.

Unfortunately, like the less industrious of the 3 little pigs, you decide to build your house from straws, and you just got yourself blown away with the straws.

Why feel so sore on a beautiful Sunday ?

It just your false economic analogy that got exposed - and you just have to return to take more blows for the juvenile tantrums that you are left with.

Bending the Judiciary - are there paralles ? replied by DeerHunter @ Sun, 15 Jun 2008 11:17:12 +0800

DeerHunter — Sun, 15 Jun 2008 11:17:12 +0800

Originally posted by Atobe:

Hahahaha - you should be familiar of the laughter of your Great Mentor Shepherd by now...

Have you changed your tune now, and decide to be ashamed ?

You should learn that charity begins at home, and should be more kind to yourself - since surely you do not claim me to be your family, and I am certain you are no clone from my genetic line even as much as you give your best effort to imitate my ways in this Speakers' Corner.

Have you also decided to identify the $27 Billion trade between China-Singapore in US Dollars ?

If we were to believe your numbers from your given 'singstat.gov' - Singapore Export to China was S$43,549.5 Million; while Singapore's Import from China was S$48.013.4 Million - and taking an exchange rate of USD1.00 to SGD 1.48 as at end-2007 : both numbers hardly come any where near your US$27 Billion.

What exchange rate were you using in making your estimate to conclude that the China-Singapore Trade - BOTH WAYS had amounted to US$27 Billion ?

Now, you ought to be ashamed for being a dishonest economic commentator, even when you have been proven to be like the Bear as a dishonest whoring political commentator.

Do continue to spew rubbish from your bin. You only serve my purpose to prove what a real fool you are with the straws you grab. Some fools like you are destined to remain fools. The more you talk, the more foolish you are. Do continue. I only need to sit back and laugh at your silly antics.

Bending the Judiciary - are there paralles ? replied by Atobe @ Sun, 15 Jun 2008 10:40:25 +0800

Atobe — Sun, 15 Jun 2008 10:40:25 +0800

Originally posted by DeerHunter:

Embarassed? No, just ashame. Ashame of you, that is. Obviously an adult but having the mind of 6 year old child. I pity you.

Shoo! Crawl back to your rubbish bin where you belong. And continue to remind everyone of the estimated $27 billion trade, in US dollars, the currency of international commerce. It only shows your utter ignorance on the international trade.

Hahahaha - you should be familiar of the laughter of your Great Mentor Shepherd by now...

Have you changed your tune now, and decide to be ashamed ?

You should learn that charity begins at home, and should be more kind to yourself - since surely you do not claim me to be your family, and I am certain you are no clone from my genetic line even as much as you give your best effort to imitate my ways in this Speakers' Corner.

Have you also decided to identify the $27 Billion trade between China-Singapore in US Dollars ?

If we were to believe your numbers from your given 'singstat.gov' - Singapore Export to China was S$43,549.5 Million; while Singapore's Import from China was S$48.013.4 Million - and taking an exchange rate of USD1.00 to SGD 1.48 as at end-2007 : both numbers hardly come any where near your US$27 Billion.

What exchange rate were you using in making your estimate to conclude that the China-Singapore Trade - BOTH WAYS had amounted to US$27 Billion ?

Now, you ought to be ashamed for being a dishonest economic commentator, even when you have been proven to be like the Bear as a dishonest whoring political commentator.

Bending the Judiciary - are there paralles ? replied by eagle @ Sun, 15 Jun 2008 10:37:56 +0800

eagle — Sun, 15 Jun 2008 10:37:56 +0800

You know, so far only Gazelle has the irritating habit of copying posts across different threads and posting it again and again like an autistic retard.

Bending the Judiciary - are there paralles ? replied by DeerHunter @ Sun, 15 Jun 2008 09:40:00 +0800

DeerHunter — Sun, 15 Jun 2008 09:40:00 +0800

Originally posted by Atobe:

Hello DeerHunter, have you been peering into the gun-sights for so long without even seeing a single Gazelle, and feeling bored will suppress your feeling of being "embarrassed to become a fool" by arguing with me ?

You should be embarrassed to argue like a foolish juvenile with your infantile 'blank points' rebuttals that make such a weak attempt at imitating my style ?

The only place that seems to get your attention is your $27 garbage bin which has seem to have successfully attacted your continuous interest in returning home to roost - as it has your $27 Billion China-Singapore Trade-BOTH WAYS.

Did you swallow the entire $27 Billion China-Singapore Trade in one gulp and unable to regurgitate, and is having constipation by now ?

Be careful with taking laxative to ease that huge $27 Billion constipation, or you may get diarhea BOTH WAYS.

Embarassed? No, just ashame. Ashame of you, that is. Obviously an adult but having the mind of 6 year old child. I pity you.

Shoo! Crawl back to your rubbish bin where you belong. And continue to remind everyone of the estimated $27 billion trade, in US dollars, the currency of international commerce. It only shows your utter ignorance on the international trade.

Bending the Judiciary - are there paralles ? replied by Atobe @ Sun, 15 Jun 2008 07:54:08 +0800

Atobe — Sun, 15 Jun 2008 07:54:08 +0800

Originally posted by DeerHunter:

"Are you certain that you will not be the one - who will surely be bothered by all the rubbish that you relish so much, that you MUST return repeatedly"

Glad you finally admitted that you talk rubbish and i must return to put you in your place repeatedly. Well done.

Hello DeerHunter, have you been peering into the gun-sights for so long without even seeing a single Gazelle, and feeling bored will suppress your feeling of being "embarrassed to become a fool" by arguing with me ?

You should be embarrassed to argue like a foolish juvenile with your infantile 'blank points' rebuttals that make such a weak attempt at imitating my style ?

The only place that seems to get your attention is your $27 garbage bin which has seem to have successfully attacted your continuous interest in returning home to roost - as it has your $27 Billion China-Singapore Trade-BOTH WAYS.

Did you swallow the entire $27 Billion China-Singapore Trade in one gulp and unable to regurgitate, and is having constipation by now ?

Be careful with taking laxative to ease that huge $27 Billion constipation, or you may get diarhea BOTH WAYS.

Bending the Judiciary - are there paralles ? replied by eagle @ Sat, 14 Jun 2008 09:31:38 +0800

eagle — Sat, 14 Jun 2008 09:31:38 +0800

Originally posted by DeerHunter:

"Are you certain that you will not be the one - who will surely be bothered by all the rubbish that you relish so much, that you MUST return repeatedly"

Glad you finally admitted that you talk rubbish and i must return to put you in your place repeatedly. Well done.

Just like how you admitted you are rude.

And a rude person has no credibility and support at all, so the more you post, the more you become the joke of this forum, the more most of us here believe you talk rubbish.

Bending the Judiciary - are there paralles ? replied by DeerHunter @ Sat, 14 Jun 2008 09:27:05 +0800

DeerHunter — Sat, 14 Jun 2008 09:27:05 +0800

Originally posted by Atobe:

Are you certain that you will not be the one - who will surely be bothered by all the rubbish that you relish so much, that you MUST return repeatedly - only to be made into a fool ?

Is the $27 rubbish bin getting too small, or are you hoping to move into a $27 Billion China-Singapore Garbage Bin - with entrances - BOTH WAYS ?

This should surely serve you and the Bear very well.

"Are you certain that you will not be the one - who will surely be bothered by all the rubbish that you relish so much, that you MUST return repeatedly"

Glad you finally admitted that you talk rubbish and i must return to put you in your place repeatedly. Well done.

Bending the Judiciary - are there paralles ? replied by Atobe @ Sat, 14 Jun 2008 08:23:37 +0800

Atobe — Sat, 14 Jun 2008 08:23:37 +0800

Another confirmation of political interference on the Malaysian Judiciary exposed by a retired judge, who is brave enough to speak his mind;

The Star, Friday June 13, 2008

Ex-judges: CJs call the shots
by SHAILA KOSHY

KUALA LUMPUR: How effectively judges can raise issues without fear during the Conference of Judges depends on who the Chief Justice is, several retired judges said.

They said the conference was an effective forum for issues to be brought up until the removal of Tun Salleh Abas as Lord President in 1988.

They said this in response to the question why several judges have, over the years, resorted to making shocking revelations or disturbing statements either in open court, in written judgments or public speeches.

The latest was that of High Court judge Datuk Ian Chin who said he felt threatened by a former prime minister after making two judgments.

He also claimed he was sent to a “boot camp” in 1997 designed to indoctrinate judges and judicial officers to put Government interest above anything else when considering a judgment.

“In the years of former lord presidents Tun Suffian (Hashim), Raja Azlan Shah (as he then was), Tun Salleh and even to a lesser extent Tun Hamid (Omar), nobody would have talked down to us,” said Court of Appeal judge Datuk V.C. George who retired in December 1995.

“They certainly would never have told us how to decide a case. We were able to raise issues without fear and even debate them vociferously at times.

“During and after the Tun Salleh debacle, we were never given the opportunity to talk about that.”

Datuk Visu Sinnadurai, who served as a High Court judge from 1992-1997, said that whoever held the post of CJ set the tenor, standards or behaviour for the rest of the judiciary.

“The CJ’s role is important because it is his responsibility to ensure the independence of the judiciary and that the rule of law is upheld at all times.”

Datuk Shaik Daud Ismail, who retired as Court of Appeal judge in June 2001, said: “Judges should be more open and should not be afraid to speak out even though it may hurt (another judge) because it is for the good of the judiciary,” he said.

Asked where judges should take their complaints, he said the Conference of Judges was the only place to go.

Another former judge expressed the hope that Justice Chin would not be asked to resign over his disclosures or if that were to happen, he would not lose his pension or medical benefits as experienced by former High Court judge Datuk Syed Ahmad Idid who had written an anonymous letter alleging improprieties in the judiciary in 1996.

Bending the Judiciary - are there paralles ? replied by Atobe @ Sat, 14 Jun 2008 08:04:36 +0800

Atobe — Sat, 14 Jun 2008 08:04:36 +0800

Originally posted by DeerHunter:

Do crawl back into your rubbish bin where you can interprete rubbish as you wish and no one will bother.

Are you certain that you will not be the one - who will surely be bothered by all the rubbish that you relish so much, that you MUST return repeatedly - only to be made into a fool ?

Is the $27 rubbish bin getting too small, or are you hoping to move into a $27 Billion China-Singapore Garbage Bin - with entrances - BOTH WAYS ?

This should surely serve you and the Bear very well.

Bending the Judiciary - are there paralles ? replied by Poh Ah Pak @ Fri, 13 Jun 2008 11:11:13 +0800

Poh Ah Pak — Fri, 13 Jun 2008 11:11:13 +0800

I think even if UK Privy Council still has rights to intervene in Singapore legal affairs, there won't be any great improvement in the political environment.

As long as Lee Kuan Yew lives, I don't see any great change.

That is why I want Lee Kuan Yew to die.

Bending the Judiciary - are there paralles ? replied by DeerHunter @ Fri, 13 Jun 2008 11:07:58 +0800

DeerHunter — Fri, 13 Jun 2008 11:07:58 +0800

Originally posted by Atobe:

Welcome back, DeerHunter - I was under the impression that you had given up your hunting license ,as you claimed that you do not wish to be embarassed to be seen arguing with someone you consider to be a fool.

Or should the truth be said that you had intended to give up your toy gun as a result of continuously being embarrassed for your 'blank points' fired, and treated like a fool ?

Still, you simply cannot resist to engage yourself to face the truth of your "intellectually challenged" status by returning in a wild charge hoping to hit a target with more "point blank" shots that will continue to hit ''blank points''.

Were you a citizen when LKY made his decision in 1965 to retain the Privy Council ?

Where were you then - if you did not even exist and probably not even a flotsam in the genetic stream of your family tree ?

Why should you be shocked ?

Are you not over-reaching your own status to even be in any position to pass judgment on LKY's intellectual strategic thinking

Your displayed intellectual capacity can hardly place you even near the waist-line height of LKY's trousers.

Can we trust you to even reach any appreciation, or come to any conclusion that LKY's political step-by-step agenda is in bidding his time in his use of any person or institution that will advance his own plans and time lines ?

'Dogs and Chinese not allowed' - have you got your bigotted fantasy movies mixed up, when this was a small part of a Bruce Lee movie set, which had this notice hung outside a Japanese Clubhouse supposedly established in a big city in China ?

If sovereignty prevent us from being taught, or learn by bench-marking ourselves with the 'Best of the Best' - then you should continue to hold LKY and his Government in contempt for the continued dependence in aligning best practices for Singapore - in the various fields of education, trade, and defence - to a variety of neo-colonialists and imperialists in the various regional and bi-lateral agreements with UK, USA, Australia, France, Germany, Sweden, Indonesia, Malaysia and any other Western or Asian Countries that has a history of imperialism or colonialism.

Why should JBJ not seek an appeal from the UK Privy Council when his and LKY's generation - with both being Nationalists - believed in the Privy Council as a viable and relevant inistitution to ensure a high standard of legal performance from a fledging Judiciary of a newly formed State ?

Under such circumstances, why should JBJ not seek an appeal from the UK Privy Council when it was available as a Final Avenue of Appeal for any conviction ?

Why should JBJ not do so - when LKY challeged JBJ to make this appeal to the Privy Council, and offered JBJ a Presidential Pardon if JBJ should succeed ?

With the present status of a political autocracy in Singapore, where there are no neutral parties to be a political arbitrator, and with the Ruling Party making Singapore into an autocratic state that manage the political environment for its own self-interests - Singapore has lost a viable counter-balance to the POWERS of ONE.

You are totally naive to believe that LKY saw it fit to remove the Privy Council out for reasons of sovereignty.

From historical records of past actions, it is clear for all to see LKY's political agenda of using everyone and anyone, or any institution to serve his overall game plan; and when each has served its purpose, he has no qualms in finding the most convenient excuse to dispose the expended individuals or institutions.

It was politically expedient for LKY to dispose of the Privy Council under the guise of sovereignty, when it was part of his game plan to plug any possibilities for any opponents to dodge his persecution - through the use of his judiciary execute the legistlations that only he will craft to extend his political grip on Singapore.

Do crawl back into your rubbish bin where you can interprete rubbish as you wish and no one will bother.

Bending the Judiciary - are there paralles ? replied by Atobe @ Fri, 13 Jun 2008 11:07:29 +0800

Atobe — Fri, 13 Jun 2008 11:07:29 +0800

Originally posted by Poh Ah Pak:

I have to agree with you on that point Gazelle.

After Lee Kuan Yew saw that the Privy Council could be used by his opponents to their advantage, he abolished the powers of that body in Singapore.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicial_Committee

This is typical of Lee Kuan Yew.

But since I despise the british interference in Singapore affairs just as much as Lee Kuan Yew, I do not object to this move.

Why should we ''cut off the nose to spite our face'' . ?

At a macro-point of view, has the removal of the Privy Council benefitted Singaporeans ? Or has it given LKY an uncheck carte blanche environment to exercise total control of every aspect of political life in Singapore ?

With a free hand, has it not allowed LKY to ''design an Election System'' that allowed his political party to dominate Parliament, enabling the expeditious passing of bills into narrow laws to regulate the citizens and prevent politiccal parties from growing to challenge his dominance; and leaving a judiciary little options to execute the crafted laws tailored for the narrow interests of a single political agenda ?

If sovereign pride prevent us from any interference - looking at it from a micro-view - why has Singapore surrendered the sanctity in the political sovereignty of each Singaporean to LKY - and allow his political agenda to dominate and strip everyone's sovereign rights to political independence within Singapore ?

Bending the Judiciary - are there paralles ? replied by Poh Ah Pak @ Fri, 13 Jun 2008 11:07:27 +0800

Poh Ah Pak — Fri, 13 Jun 2008 11:07:27 +0800

Impartiality in terms of political views? Dream on......

Yes, dream on.

Bending the Judiciary - are there paralles ? replied by maurizio13 @ Fri, 13 Jun 2008 10:42:30 +0800

maurizio13 — Fri, 13 Jun 2008 10:42:30 +0800

The removal of the Privy Council was to set the stage so that the old man could have absolute control of the judiciary.

It would be hilarious if judgements arranged by the old man could be overturned by the Privy Council in the UK.

Impartiality in terms of political views? Dream on......

Bending the Judiciary - are there paralles ? replied by Atobe @ Fri, 13 Jun 2008 10:30:15 +0800

Atobe — Fri, 13 Jun 2008 10:30:15 +0800

Welcome back, DeerHunter - I was under the impression that you had given up your hunting license ,as you claimed that you do not wish to be embarassed to be seen arguing with someone you consider to be a fool.

Or should the truth be said that you had intended to give up your toy gun as a result of continuously being embarrassed for your 'blank points' fired, and treated like a fool ?

Still, you simply cannot resist to engage yourself to face the truth of your "intellectually challenged" status by returning in a wild charge hoping to hit a target with more "point blank" shots that will continue to hit ''blank points''.

Originally posted by DeerHunter:

The Privy council? UK judical system? Our ex-colonnials masters?

MM Lee should have never suggested using them in the first place. We had already gain our independence and am a sovereign state. We have our own laws, although adapted mostly from their common law, but still, we as a society determine our own rules in this island state.

As a citizen, i am most shocked for a suggestion to use them.

Were you a citizen when LKY made his decision in 1965 to retain the Privy Council ?

Where were you then - if you did not even exist and probably not even a flotsam in the genetic stream of your family tree ?

Why should you be shocked ?

Are you not over-reaching your own status to even be in any position to pass judgment on LKY's intellectual strategic thinking

Your displayed intellectual capacity can hardly place you even near the waist-line height of LKY's trousers.

Can we trust you to even reach any appreciation, or come to any conclusion that LKY's political step-by-step agenda is in bidding his time in his use of any person or institution that will advance his own plans and time lines ?

But I am EVEN MORE SHOCKED, that JBJ, supposedly a nationalist, WOULD ACTUALLY ENGAGE outsiders like the UK Privy Council to INTERFERE with our laws!

So much for sovereignty. Thank heavens MM Lee saw fit to disallow our ex-colonnial masters of the ' Dogs and Chinese not allowed' fame to interfere in our own sovereign affairs.

'Dogs and Chinese not allowed' - have you got your bigotted fantasy movies mixed up, when this was a small part of a Bruce Lee movie set, which had this notice hung outside a Japanese Clubhouse supposedly established in a big city in China ?

If sovereignty prevent us from being taught, or learn by bench-marking ourselves with the 'Best of the Best' - then you should continue to hold LKY and his Government in contempt for the continued dependence in aligning best practices for Singapore - in the various fields of education, trade, and defence - to a variety of neo-colonialists and imperialists in the various regional and bi-lateral agreements with UK, USA, Australia, France, Germany, Sweden, Indonesia, Malaysia and any other Western or Asian Countries that has a history of imperialism or colonialism.

Why should JBJ not seek an appeal from the UK Privy Council when his and LKY's generation - with both being Nationalists - believed in the Privy Council as a viable and relevant inistitution to ensure a high standard of legal performance from a fledging Judiciary of a newly formed State ?

Under such circumstances, why should JBJ not seek an appeal from the UK Privy Council when it was available as a Final Avenue of Appeal for any conviction ?

Why should JBJ not do so - when LKY challeged JBJ to make this appeal to the Privy Council, and offered JBJ a Presidential Pardon if JBJ should succeed ?

With the present status of a political autocracy in Singapore, where there are no neutral parties to be a political arbitrator, and with the Ruling Party making Singapore into an autocratic state that manage the political environment for its own self-interests - Singapore has lost a viable counter-balance to the POWERS of ONE.

You are totally naive to believe that LKY saw it fit to remove the Privy Council out for reasons of sovereignty.

From historical records of past actions, it is clear for all to see LKY's political agenda of using everyone and anyone, or any institution to serve his overall game plan; and when each has served its purpose, he has no qualms in finding the most convenient excuse to dispose the expended individuals or institutions.

It was politically expedient for LKY to dispose of the Privy Council under the guise of sovereignty, when it was part of his game plan to plug any possibilities for any opponents to dodge his persecution - through the use of his judiciary execute the legistlations that only he will craft to extend his political grip on Singapore.

Bending the Judiciary - are there paralles ? replied by Poh Ah Pak @ Thu, 12 Jun 2008 15:45:36 +0800

Poh Ah Pak — Thu, 12 Jun 2008 15:45:36 +0800

So much for sovereignty. Thank heavens MM Lee saw fit to disallow our ex-colonnial masters of the ' Dogs and Chinese not allowed' fame to interfere in our own sovereign affairs.

I have to agree with you on that point Gazelle.

After Lee Kuan Yew saw that the Privy Council could be used by his opponents to their advantage, he abolished the powers of that body in Singapore.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicial_Committee

This is typical of Lee Kuan Yew.

But since I despise the british interference in Singapore affairs just as much as Lee Kuan Yew, I do not object to this move.

Bending the Judiciary - are there paralles ? replied by DeerHunter @ Thu, 12 Jun 2008 15:40:21 +0800

DeerHunter — Thu, 12 Jun 2008 15:40:21 +0800

The Privy council? UK judical system? Our ex-colonnials masters?

MM Lee should have never suggested using them in the first place. We had already gain our independence and am a sovereign state. We have our own laws, although adapted mostly from their common law, but still, we as a society determine our own rules in this island state.

As a citizen, i am most shocked for a suggestion to use them.

But I am EVEN MORE SHOCKED, that JBJ, supposedly a nationalist, WOULD ACTUALLY ENGAGE outsiders like the UK Privy Council to INTERFERE with our laws!

So much for sovereignty. Thank heavens MM Lee saw fit to disallow our ex-colonnial masters of the ' Dogs and Chinese not allowed' fame to interfere in our own sovereign affairs.

Bending the Judiciary - are there paralles ? replied by redDUST @ Thu, 12 Jun 2008 11:51:17 +0800

redDUST — Thu, 12 Jun 2008 11:51:17 +0800

Originally posted by maurizio13:

We are such close neighbours, it isn't surprising if we share some common maladies.

when 2 (old) men try to outdo each other, the man in the street gets trampled.

no surpises that the judiciary is not spared.

here, LKY use the carrot-n-stick method to keep the lid shut.

Bending the Judiciary - are there paralles ? replied by maurizio13 @ Thu, 12 Jun 2008 11:21:38 +0800

maurizio13 — Thu, 12 Jun 2008 11:21:38 +0800

We are such close neighbours, it isn't surprising if we share some common maladies.

Bending the Judiciary - are there paralles ? replied by Atobe @ Thu, 12 Jun 2008 03:04:37 +0800

Atobe — Thu, 12 Jun 2008 03:04:37 +0800

Originally posted by robertteh:

Atobe,

Let all who have eyes see and who have ears hear. That is the only thing citizens need to do to discern the truth - is our judiciary compliant to the wishes or will of the executive?

If anyone wants to say we have an independent judiciary let him have the literal transcripts of how the politicians talk against the defending underdog in the witness stand in political defamation cases. Did any of our judges hearing such cases ever overrule irrelevant calling of liars by the politicians of defendants as irrelevant, objectionable and repugnant in the face of all the cross calling of names by both sides in electioneering.

Given the fact that judges are appointed or promoted with the consent of the politicians should not such calling of names be stopped in court process to avoid the judges being intimidated in his fair hearing of political defamation cases?

This reminds me of ‘J.B.Jeyaratnam’s appeal to Privy Council vindicate District Court Judge Michael Khoo’s decsion’ - in which J.B.J acquittal from the initial charges by District Court Judge Michael Khoo was overturned by the Chief Justice Wee Chong Jin on appeal by AG Chambers.

Then PM LKY had challenged JBJ to make his appeal to the UK Privy Council - which was retained by LKY to review the standards of the Singapore Judiciary - and declared in Parliament that if the Privy Council should find the Singapore Appeal Court judgement to be wrong, he will recommend a Presidential Pardon for JBJ.

As matters stand, the Privy Council did find the decisions - of the Singapore Appeal Court presided by the Chief Justice - to be wrong in overturning the District Court Judge acquittal of JBJ

Following the Privy Council review, LKY repealed his own decision to have the Privy Council to review the performance standards of the Singapore Judiciary, claiming that the Privy Council is "out-of-touch" with Singapore, and that it was a symbol of a Colonial past.

A single party dominate Parliament quickly passed a Bill to make the Singapore Appeals Court as the final court of appeal, and the Privy Council no longer a factor in the Singapore judicial system.

District Court Judge was removed from the bench, and transferred to the Attorney-General's Chambers in his new position as a Solicitor-General.

LKY never saw it fit to recommend J.B.J for a Presidential pardon - despite his highly publicised statement made.

Francis Seow - a previous Solicitor-General and politician - had recorded his experience and observations as a member of the system in his work titled:-

‘The politics of judicial institutions in Singapore’

Bending the Judiciary - are there paralles ? replied by robertteh @ Thu, 12 Jun 2008 01:32:16 +0800

robertteh — Thu, 12 Jun 2008 01:32:16 +0800

Atobe,

Let all who have eyes see and who have ears hear. That is the only thing citizens need to do to discern the truth - is our judiciary compliant to the wishes or will of the executive?

If anyone wants to say we have an independent judiciary let him have the literal transcripts of how the politicians talk against the defending underdog in the witness stand in political defamation cases. Did any of our judges hearing such cases ever overrule irrelevant calling of liars by the politicians of defendants as irrelevant, objectionable and repugnant in the face of all the cross calling of names by both sides in electioneering.

Given the fact that judges are appointed or promoted with the consent of the politicians should not such calling of names be stopped in court process to avoid the judges being intimidated in his fair hearing of political defamation cases?

Bending the Judiciary - are there paralles ? replied by Atobe @ Thu, 12 Jun 2008 00:12:33 +0800

Atobe — Thu, 12 Jun 2008 00:12:33 +0800

Is this a trait amongst Third World Countries - where the Executive Branch of Government will pressure the Judicial Branch to bend to their will ?

Are we not fortunate that Singapore belong to the First World - and that we should never allow this to happen to our Judiciary ?

Justice Ian Chin tells of threats and indoctrination attempt

PETALING JAYA: A High Court judge here revealed that a former prime minister had threatened judges. Justice Datuk Ian H. C. Chin also said he and selected judges were sent to a boot camp to ensure they got the message.

Justice Chin said this before hearing an election petition challenging the results of the Sarikei parliamentary seat which was won by a Barisan Nasional candidate by just 51 votes.

In a report in the Borneo Post yesterday, that comes hot on the heels of the findings of the Royal Commission on the V.K. Lingam video clip, Justice Chin said the threat from the former prime minister came after he handed down two judgments in 1997.

One was a judgment on a libel case involving MGG Pillai and Tan Sri Vincent Tan where he refused to give what he considered to be an astronomical award.

Justice Chin said the other judgment was in an election petition on Bukit Bangunan in the Sri Aman Division that he ruled in favour of Independent candidate Donald Lawan against Barisan Nasional candidate Mong Dagang.

“Shortly after the two judgments, the Judges Conference was held from April 24, 1997 where the then prime minister issued a thinly veiled threat to remove judges by referring them to a tribunal and stating that, though it may be difficult to do so, it was still done.”

Justice Chin said the former prime minister expressed unhappiness with what he termed ‘the Borneo Case’.

“Everyone knew which case he was referring to,” he added.

Justice Chin said after the threat, the former Prime Minister said people should pay heavily for libel and he only got a single response from a Court of Appeal judge who asked if he would be happy with a sum of RM1mil as damages for libel.

“He approved of it and later made known his satisfaction by promoting this judge (since deceased) to the Federal Court over many others who were senior to him.”

A month later, Justice Chin said he and select judges and judicial officers were packed off to a boot camp from May 26-30, 1997 where there was an attempt to indoctrinate them with the view “that the government interest was more important than all else.”

“Stating this devilish notion was no less a person than the President of the Court of Appeal. Everyone was quiet during the question sessions.”

Justice Chin added “the perversion of justice” continued and recounted an episode when a fellow judge Muhammad Kamil Awang told him he had received a telephone call from the then Chief Justice asking him to dismiss the election petition that he was going to hear in Kota Kinabalu.

“We went into the possibility of making a police report or of writing to the Chief Justice a letter to record what he had said over the telephone but in the end he decided against it since it would be his word against that of the Chief Justice,” he said.

Justice Chin said he was happy to later on learn that Kamil did not bow to the pressure and went on to hear the petition, thereafter making a decision based on law and evidence.

Justice Chin said he wanted the parties involved in the current petition and their counsel to hear his disclosure in case they wanted him to recuse himself.

The High Court judge said he had twice stood unsuccessfully as a Barisan Nasional candidate for a parliamentary and later for a state seat in Sabah in the 1980s and in one of those elections he was defeated by a DAP candidate.

“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” and the second respondent was a Barisan candidate and “it may cross someone’s mind that I may have an axe to grind against the party concerned or any party thereof.”

To this, he said: “No amount of words from me would assuage you of your worry. You will have to read my judgments as to whether they are according to the evidence and the law or were influenced by threat.”

Chin then adjourned for half an hour to let the parties consider whether they wished to make any application for his recusal.

However, the parties – DAP’s Dr Wong Hua Seh and Barisan’s Ding Kuong Hiing – expressed their full confidence in him in presiding over the hearing of the case.

Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad was prime minister at the relevant time. He was not available for comment yesterday.

Related Story:
Bar Council: Get to the bottom of shocking disclosures

External Link:
Notes of proceedings by Justice Datuk Ian H.C. Chin

http://www.thestar.com.my/news/story.asp?file=/2008/6/11/nation/21512634&sec=nation

Recent Posts in 'Bending the Judiciary - are there paralles ?' | sgForums.com