True picture of Singapore justice - BY Francis T. Seow, former solicitor general of Singapore
- From: "kingkong" <thumbdownnow@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 31 Mar 2006 15:46:03 +0800
http://www.singapore-window.org/1028judi.htm
NOW to draw aside the curtain, to show you the true picture. Some history is
needed to show how the legal system was systematically undermined by the
prime minister after the People's Action Party (PAP), came into power in
June 1959. The senior crown counsel, Ahmad Ibrahim, was promoted over the
solicitor general, A.V. Winslow, to the top office of attorney general.
Ahmad Ibrahim was a Muslim, and his presence was useful to the prime
minister, whose political objectives included merger with Malaya. A.V.
Winslow, on the other hand, was a Ceylon Tamil, the first Singaporean in the
colonial legal service to reach its topmost rung. The prime minister,
however, saw him as too closely tied to the old colonial administration, and
therefore politically unreliable. Several years later, Winslow was elevated
to the high court bench but, significantly, was never assigned to try
sensitive cases.
Meanwhile, Ahmad Ibrahim -- who had become a political liability but whose
tenure of office was protected under the constitution -- was sent overseas
as ambassador to the United Arab Republic. This lateral promotion is
reminiscent of the practice of Chinese emperors getting rid of awkward
officials by sending them out to govern the far-flung provinces.
Another significant move was the designation of Justice Wee Chong Jin -- a
relatively recent recruit from the bar -- as chief justice over the more
experienced acting incumbent. Like Winslow, he was also identified with the
old order. Wee's political acuity and industry had recommended themselves to
the prime minister, who once again ignored the claims of seniority and
experience to further his political agenda.
THE sudden transfer in 1986 of senior district judge, Michael Khoo -- one of
the ablest judges to grace the subordinate court bench -- to the attorney
general's chambers following his acquittal of Joshua Benjamin Jeyaretnam, an
opposition MP, and, more significantly, the prime minister's political bêtre
noire, (Among the many colourful epithets were: "hustler", "skunk", "mangy
dog", "charlatan", and "political riff-raff". Hansard, Parliamentary
debates, March 19, 1986, cols. 688-689, 720.) on all politically-inspired
charges, save one, of financial impropriety, engendered much controversy.
From being the respected head of the subordinate judiciary, Khoo overnightbecame a mere digit within the attorney general's chambers.
The prosecution appealed the acquittal. The chief justice allowed the appeal
with the unusual instruction for it to be retried before another district
judge. Jeyaretnam's application for the retrial to be heard before a high
court judge to enable him to appeal to the Judicial Committee of the Privy
Council -- Singapore's ultimate court of appeal in London -- was refused. At
the re-trial, he was predictably found guilty, and convicted. His appeal
against the conviction and sentence was heard by Justice Lai Kew Chai, who
dismissed his appeal, and varied the sentence to month's imprisonment, plus
a fine, which was high enough to disqualify him from sitting in parliament.
Meanwhile, Jeyaretnam alleged in parliament that Khoo's transfer had caused
"public disquiet," implying that it had been motivated by political
considerations, which he expanded to include both the chief justice and the
attorney general, as being "beholden" to the prime minister for having
extended their respective appointments beyond their legal retirement age. In
a rancorous parliamentary debate, it emerged that Khoo's transfer was not a
"routine departmental transfer," as claimed by the prime minister. In the
result, Jeyaretnam was expelled from parliament, and disbarred from law
practice.
Jeyaretnam appealed the disbarment to the privy council, which, in allowing
the appeal, roundly castigated the chief justice and the Singapore courts
for their legal reasoning. It was a telling indictment of Singapore's
courts. The privy council held that two innocent persons had suffered a
grievous injustice -- fined, imprisoned and publicly disgraced for offences
of which they were not guilty.
.
- Prev by Date: Re: Don't fall for Teo Chee Hean's trap!
- Next by Date: Re: Microsoft Manager is new PAP MP ?
- Previous by thread: Dubious freedom
- Next by thread: It's your duty to vote, but it's not a right
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
