LAW SOCIETY SEEKS VOICE ON NON-LEGAL ISSUES

LAW Society president Philip Jeyaretnam has called for the body to be given the freedom to speak out on issues outside the legal profession, but the Law Ministry does not look likely to agree.

Since 1986, the society has been bound by tight laws limiting its scope to comment on matters like civil liberties, after it went head-to-head with the in a tussle over the issue.

The Law Society had sparked the row with its outspoken opposition to, among other things, laws curbing foreign publications that commented negatively on Singapore’s domestic politics.

At the time, Mr Wong Kan Seng, who was acting community development minister, criticised the society for getting involved in issues of public policy not directly related to the profession.

A clause in the Legal Profession Act was then added, so that the society would be permitted to comment on only legislation ’submitted to it’.

The clause had previously empowered the group to speak on all legislative matters.

Malaysia and Brunei subsequently imposed similar restrictions on their own legal associations.

In the latest issue of the society’s journal, Law Gazette, Mr Jeyaretnam said the profession ‘ought to be freed to express its views on civil liberties while keeping out of partisan politics”.

He described the restriction as being ‘at odds with the proper role of the legal profession in society’.

Mr Jeyaretnam said the society’s work record over the past few years had demonstrated that it has a special role to play in the justice system, including seeking reform and change ‘even on such contentious matters as police custody’.

He also pointed out that professional law bodies in Britain and Australia had recently spoken out on proposed anti- terrorism measures, regardless of whether their views were sought by theirs.

‘Lawyers do have special expertise that justifies having a voice on constitutional and civil liberty issues,’ he said.

Lawyers welcomed his views, arguing that the present climate is different from that in the 1980s.

Association of Criminal Lawyers of Singapore president Subhas Anandan said he did not support the 1986 changes in the first place, but added that he doubted whether lawyers would speak out even if the law was changed.

The Law Ministry does not appear to share the society’s views.

Contacted by The Straits Times, a ministry spokesman said ‘the rationale for the 1986 amendment still stands’.

The spokesman said the Law Society’s activities should stay within the specific purposes set out in the Legal Profession Act, which concern the regulation of the legal profession, maintaining professional standards and advancing lawyers’ professional interests.

She said the Law Society was not meant to serve as a ’special interest group to speak out collectively on any particular issue unconnected with these purposes’.

‘There is no restriction on lawyers expressing their views in their individual capacity on any matter and many have in fact done so,’ she said.

‘When the Law Society submitted views and suggestions on its own accord to the Ministry of Law relating to the administration of justice and practice of law in Singapore, which are matters within its statutory powers, the Ministry of Law has considered them carefully.’
______________________________________________________________

The above article caught my attention for MinLaw’s intriguing statements:

1. “the rationale for the 1986 amendment still stands” – What is that rationale? I’m puzzled. I cannot figure it out. Who will suffer detriment if the Law Society is allowed to speak up?

2. “The Law Society’s activities should stay within the specific purposes set out in the Legal Profession Act, which concern the regulation of the legal profession, maintaining professional standards and advancing lawyers’ professional interests.” Sounds like the Law Society is chastised for not being insular enough! Our Government wants the Law Society to direct its collective talents, efforts and resources towards its own domestic issues and self-interests and not to concern itself with “any particular issue unconnected with these purposes”. I don’t understand how it serves the nation’s interest, the general public and the common good to bar (no pun intended) the Law Society from the public square and from active citizenry. If the Law Society cannot comment on matters of civil liberties and constitutional law (except when asked), who else in Singapore (apart from those in Government service) can be equal to the task?

3. ‘There is no restriction on lawyers expressing their views in their individual capacity on any matter and many have in fact done so.’- So lawyers can speak up on an individual basis but speaking as collective group is a different matter. Why?

Say I believe that my country is a parliamentary democracy in which the Constitution is supreme. Say I have faith in the system that the Rule of Law will be upheld and my fundamental rights guaranteed. Those are statements of faith and belief. But politics is not a religion and the relationship between citizen and Government cannot be a matter of faith and belief. Reality must correspond to beliefs, otherwise I’m plainly mistaken and possibly deluded.

If I tell you something is a spade but that thing does not serve or function as spade, then it is not a spade and calling it “a spade” does not make it one. To be a democracy, there has to exist practices and rules in our public square by which to identify our system of Government as a democracy.

For those who detract from the view that we are a democracy, the continued existence of laws which curb the voices of the articulate is for such detractors, evidence of the regime’s intolerance to alternative or opposing views and fear of dissent by an influential collective, and nicely serves to prove their case.

Long Live pap….

The letter below (extracted from http://www.singapore-window.org/ag0721.htm) shows that in our 1st world Singapore, laws can be interpreted in every which way but lose (or is it loose?)

After reading the Acts, I initially thought that the Returning Officer must have authorised in writing to allow Mr Goh Chok Tong, Dr Tony Tan and Brigadier-General (NS) Lee Hsien Loong to be in the Cheng San Polling Station.

But I was perplexed by Chan Sek Keong’s conclusion, “Accordingly, those unauthorised persons who only wait or loiter inside a polling station on polling day do not commit any offence under the Act.”

Loiter outside is an offence but loiter inside is ok?

And who allowed the loiterers to be loitering inside in the first place?

Have I been dazzled by legalese or have I been baffled by bullshit?

As I’m no lawyer but a heartlander peasant trying to understand better, I’d appreciate if some legal experts can enlighten me on this classic.

- – - THE LETTER – - –

Unauthorised persons inside polling stations: Attorney General’s letter

Text of a letter from Singapore’s attorney general to law minister S. Jayakumar on the presence of unauthorised persons inside polling stations. The minister summarised the attorney general’s opinion when he replied to a query in parliament from non-constituency MP and Workers’ Party chief J. B. Jeyaretnam July 30.

The Workers’ Party had complained to the police that Mr Goh Chok Tong, Dr Tony Tan and Brigadier-General (NS) Lee Hsien Loong had been inside a Cheng San GRC polling station on Polling Day.

But the Public Prosecutor recently advised the police that the PAP leaders had not broken the law.

21 Jul 97

Prof S Jayakumar
Minister for Law

PRESENCE OF UNAUTHORISED PERSONS INSIDE POLLING STATIONS

On 14 July l997, THE Workers’ Party issued a press release expressing “amazement” that the public prosecutor had advised police that no offence was disclosed in the reports made by it leaders against the prime minister, the two deputy prime ministers and Dr S Vasoo that they had been present inside polling stations when they were not candidates for the relevant constituencies. The Workers’ Party queried why such conduct was not an offence under paragraph (d) or (e) of section 82(1) of the Parliamentary Elections Act.

2. On 15 July 1997, the Singapore Democratic Party also called on the attorney general to explain his “truly befuddling” decision and to state clearly if it was an offence for unauthorised persons to enter polling stations.

3. You have asked me for my formal opinion on the question raised in these two statements. My opinion is set out below.

Opinion

4. The question is whether it is an offence under the Parliamentary Elections Act for an unauthorised person to enter and be present in a polling station.

5. For this purpose, the authorised persons are the candidates, the polling agent or agents of each candidate, the Returning Officer, and persons authorised in writing by the returning officer, the police officers on duty and other persons officially employed at the polling station; see section 39 (4) of the Act (quoted below)

Activities Outside Polling Stations

6. The relevant sections of the Parliamentary Elections Act to be considered are sections 82 (1)(d) and 82 (1)(e). These provisions were enacted m 1959 pursuant to the Report of the Commission of Inquiry into Corrupt, Illegal or Undesirable Practices at Elections, Cmd 7 of 1968 (hereinafter called “the Elias Report)”

7. Section 82 (1)(d) provides that – “No person shall wait outside any polling station on polling day, except for the purpose of gaining entry to the polling station to cast his vote”.

8. Plainly, persons found waiting inside the polling stations do not come within the ambit of this section. Similarly, those who enter or have entered the polling station cannot be said to be waiting outside it. Only those who wait outside the polling station commit an offence under this section unless they are waiting to enter the polling station to cast their votes.

9. Section 82 (1)(e) provides that -

“No person shall loiter in any street or public place within a radius of 200 metres of any polling station on polling day.”

10. The relevant question is whether any person who is inside a polling station can be sad to be “within a radius of 200 metres of any polling station”. The answer to this question will also answer any question on loitering inside a polling station.

11. Plainly, a person inside a polling station cannot be said to be within a radius of 200 metres of a polling station. A polling station must have adequate space for the voting to be carried out. Any space has a perimeter. The words “within a radius of 200 metres” ‘ therefore mean “200 metres from the perimeter of” any polling station. This point is illustrated in the diagrams in the Appendix. (Editor’s note: Diagrams not available).

12. The above interpretation is fortified by the context of the provision. The polling station, as a place, is distinguished from a street or public place. It is not a street or a public place. Hence, being inside a polling station cannot amount to being in a street or in a public place. By parity of reasoning, loitering in a street or public place cannot possibly include loitering in the polling station itself and vice versa.

13. There is no ambiguity in section 82 (1)(e). If the legislature had intended to make it an offence for unauthorised persons to wait or loiter inside a polling station, it could have easily provided for it. It did not. The mischief that section 82 (1)(e) is intended to address is found in paragraph 99 of the Elias Report. It reads:

“In order to prevent voters being made subject to my form of undue influence or harassment at the approaches to polling stations, we recommend that it should be made an offence for any person to establish any desk or table near the entrance to any polling station, or to wait outside any polling station on polling day except for the purpose of gaining entry into the polling station to cast his vote; and that it should be an offence for any person to loiter in any street or public place within a radius of 200 yards of any polling station on polling day .”

14 . Paragraph 99 of the Elias Report appears under the heading “Activity OUTSIDE POLLING STATIONS”. The Commission of Inquiry was addressing the possibility of voters being subject to undue influence and harassment as they approach the polling stations. There is therefore no doubt whatever that this provision was never intended to cover any activity inside the polling station as there would be officials and election agents in attendance.

15. The legislative history makes the provision so clear that it is not even necessary to consider the application of an established principle of interpretation that any ambiguity in a penal provision should, whenever possible, be resolved favour of the accused.

Activities Inside Polling Stations

16 Activities inside polling stations were made subject to a different regime under the Act. Section 39(4) provides that -

“the presiding officer shall keep order in his station and shall regulate the number of voters to be admitted a time, and shall exclude all other persons except the polling agent or agents of each candidate, the Returning Officer and persons authorised in writing by the Returning Officer, the police officers on duty and other persons officially employed at the polling station.”

17. Under section 39(7), any person who misconducts himself in the polling station, or fails to obey the lawful orders of the presiding officer may be removed from the polling station by a police officer acting under the orders of the presiding officer. If an unauthorised person refuses to leave the polling station when told to do so by the public officer, he commits an offence under section 186 of the Penal Code for obstructing a public servant in the discharge of his duty.

18. There is a consistency in the rationales of the regulatory schemes governing activities inside and those outside polling stations on election day. Waiting outside a polling station is made an offence because it gives rise to opportunities to influence or intimidate voters: see paragraph 99 of the Elias Report. Hence, the Act has provided a safety zone which stretches outwards for 200 metres from the polling station. In contrast, the possibility of a person inside a polling station influencing or intimidating voters in the presence of the presiding officer and his officials, the polling agents etc was considered so remote that it was discounted by the Act.

19. I therefore confirm my opinion that the Parliamentary Elections Act does not provide for any offence of unauthorised entry into or presence within a polling station. Accordingly, those unauthorised persons who only wait or loiter inside a polling station on polling day do not commit any offence under the Act.

20. You are at liberty to publish this opinion.

Signed:
Chan Sek Keong
Attorney General.

— End of Letter- – -

http://singaporeenbloc.blogspot.com/2008/08/greek-mythology-themis-and-source.html

As I put in my 2008 National Day blog, do we have:
(1) Just Injustice;
(2) Unjust Justice; or
(3) Just Justice???

Perhaps there is a difference in emphasis between the USA and Singapore? The USA is clear about the goal, i.e. justice. Singapore has a stronger emphasis on the means, i.e.law, which can be used for other goals (not justice?)

Fully agree!

“Singapore is too small for people not to row their own boats.”

Agree too!

Laws need to be reviewed! The government bodies themselves need to be reviewed too. SPF getting shoddy for example! Evidence left behind by loanshark still with me after almost a week. They never came after I called them. (My neighbourhood harrassed by unhappy loanshark after the lender moved away.) And later they sent ME my neighbour’s letter. lol wtf

So who will their name to be marred because of entering into law profession that could not administer and speak up for justice and fairness ? Or do they want their face to be world-recognised when they cahoot with the kangaroos ?

Throwing legislation to mute people is as good as telling people they can sit in a kopitiam, but not talk too loudly.

It’s ludicrous really.. what more, it is a professional body whose members practice in the field that is in question..

“So this certainly puts the Law Society in a moral dilemma. The Law Society, which represents all Singapore lawyers who are in private practice, is standing in a vantage spot where it often see things that others cannot. If the Law Society notices something amiss, should it practice active citizenry to speak up and thereby act in breach of its legal restrain? Or should the Law Society observe its legal restrain to remain mute (unless spoken to) and be thereby morally guilty of the sin of omission?”

Jeannette, do you personally think that the law should be amended to allow the Law Society or its members to speak or comment on legal issues?

If you ask me, my answer is yes.