The imputation that the Singapore courts are ‘kangaroo courts’ was a serious and scurrilous insult that struck at the foundation, the body and the spirit of the justice system in Singapore.
Justice Judith Prakash, explaining her decision and sentencing on trio who were charged for contempt of court in November.
singapore is not a kangoroo court @ all?
can anyone just slammed the door open while court is in session
with your hewnchman standin in front of a judge
and you still mananged to find a seat ready
without being charged for CONTEMPT?
But if the shoe fits…..
Dear Justice Judith Prakash,
How should people express their opinion if their opinion is that Singapore’s court is indeed a Kangaroo Court?
wow. now that’s a really harsh opinion, and i am saddened by the verdict passed. this is yet another blow to my trust in value judgement of the law system in sg.
Truth is an absolute privilege and an absolute defense…in most OTHER jurisdictions.
smallvice585
I think you hit the right note. Is there any way in which a person can express his opinion if he thinks the court isn’t fair without incurring legal repercussions? Maybe this is something we should ask Justice Judith. It defies logic that because an institution is supposed to be held in high regard, therefore people must think so, irregardless of the institution’s actions. It’s a circular logic that makes no sense especially in light that cases in court are won or lost based on evidence and the power of logical arguments.
It’s time the court comes out and justify why it thinks it’s trial and sentencing of dissenters is within procedures. If its argument is reasonable, there is no reason why reasonable people won’t buy it.
Isn’t Judith Prakash himself giving the Worst insult possible to the term Justice and to his title when he couldn’t prove that Singapore court is not kangaroo court amidst all the recording and transcript in SDP’s site ? Unless someone telling me that SDP’s transcript is all lies… if so, let the government prove that SDP is lying since they have a video recording of the court proceedings.
Just because you say there is no kangaroo court doesn’t mean it is not kangaroo court. Kangaroo court is nothing but just a abstract term.
In the same way, just because Chen ShuiBian says he is not corrupted doesn’t make him any less corrupted of his corrupted misdeed.
Call a spade a spade, just tell us you are serving a monarch court, and I will rest my case.
Maybe the judge want to enlighten us of the definition of kangaroo court.
Does it has to be that judge must assemble real kangaroo animal in order for court to be known as kangaroo court ?
By the way, how can the court be not kangaroo when the parliament itself is nothing but circus with bunch of clowns passing questions that sound like a scripted joke ? Oh yeah, even more clownful when the statement of minister in parliament who swear under court can even amend her statement and add in extra correction without saying SORRY or ADMITTING HONEST MISTAKE.
I’ve always believed there is no smoke without fire.
The court should do some introspection on the respect it lost.
May be the court of law is not a kangaroo court only when the judges are trying NON-POLITICAL cases.
All I can say is that Rules and Regulations can be democratic or dictatorial mandates but it cannot control how a person thinks. I have always visualized that most high courts or supreme courts in the democratic world had a blindfolded Goddesses of Justice statuette holding a balanced scale. Now I think I understand the true meaning or rather the hidden meaning of connotation. May be “this version” of Goddess of Justice blindfold material is made of a thin layer of “cling wrap” and the scale can be easily tip when one’s “weight” is heavier. This is about the most logical explanation I can console myself to continue to uphold my highest respects and regards.
I agree they become a kangaroo when dealing with political cases.
And for certain non-political cases, they have also turn into a kangaroo.
Recall NKF TT Durai, tycoon Tang, etc etc, ? sorry I am not good for names.
Recall the IBA report on the judiciary ? the members in IBA are prominent lawyers and judges from different countries and surely there is truth in their opinion.
The worst insult possible is actually felt by us lesser mortals.
No end to this regime trying to pull wool over our eyes,again and again………………..
“May be the court of law is not a kangaroo court only when the judges are trying NON-POLITICAL cases.”
If the evidence show that it is a kangaroo court, it doesn’t whether it is political or not political. After all, who is the one to decide what is political or not political ? Does the questioning the government and court which blatantly show bias towards the hememony make the questioner having political agenda ?
These are just laymen that having a job, family like you and I, and hope to see accountability and responsibility of the government who treat Singaporeans as moron and plaything.
I have an experience..
The judge who sentenced me to jail took almost 5 months to respond to my appeal on sentence, and that was only for the Ground of Judgement to reach me.
Anyone who is familiar with appeal procedures would know the duration taken was not reasonable in a developed country like Singapore.
Ultimately, i gave up my chance to appeal as the time taken was almost equivalent to my imprisonment period.
Where on earth is Justice?
but saying that the emperor is naked is insulting too…
I remember the previous US president was called a lame duck by many people including journalists. I think even our MSM had an article on it some time ago if I remember correctly.
So if i wear a T-shirt of a duck on crutches wearing the white uniform of our elites would it be considered as an attack on them too?
To me, I consider our elite PM and President most deserving of this term ‘lame duck’ but will our MSM ever mention it in their editorials? I definitely doubt so and so isn’t it double standards yet again?.
I believe many more insult have been thrown at our justice system and our honourable men. But to only defend ones honour using the very institution whose reputation is being question does not exactly rebut the allegation. I will gladly accept that the allegation are untrue and that these men’s honour has been tarnished when their honour was defended rigourestly where ever is was questioned. Especially in a neutral court of higher standing. I believe that Suharto, Macos and many more corrupt and dishonourable men will claim to be god’s reincarnation in the own kingdom of power. Its only when the reins of power are no longer is their hands that the truth prevails. Honour and respect cannot be demanded, it has to be earned.
I think otherwise.
Dear Justice Prakash,
I have some questions for you and I am sure that you know the answers, but I have to say categorically that I am not certain whether my questions have any direct link to whether Singapore courts are “kangaroo courts.”
Why did the High Court reject the appeal of the Far Eastern Economic Review [FEER] to employ a Queen’s Counsel [QC] to represent them in the libel suit filed by Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong and Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew?. Justice Tay Yong Kwang is reported to have said “the case was not sufficiently difficult and complex to require a QC”. Surely, this statement of Justice Tay is subjective and debatable, don’t you think? Why would FEER and their lawyer think they have a need for a QC to argue their case, if it is not difficult and complex?
Indisputably, anybody being sued for libel or defamation has a right to engage legal expertise for their defense but such right would appear to be compromised if it is restricted, as in this case, to the kind of legal expertise they can employ, even at their own cost. Whether a case is not sufficiently complex to warrant a QC should not be the sole criterion for rejecting an appeal for a QC, as complexity or non-complexity is, arguably, a subjective issue. Is there a law specifically barring the use of QCs for court cases in Singapore?
I am not for or against FEER, but as a Singaporean I would like to see that our legal system is not marred by perceptions of unfairness, which can easily arise, as in this case, if the defendant is barred from using a QC for their defense. Whether or not we are in the legal profession it would be interesting to watch one of our top lawyers pitting his legal expertise against a lawyer from another country.
Dear Justice Prakash, you can of course post anonymously if you want to. But your answers are awaited, nonetheless.
Can the judge tell us that why are our courts and justices is non-kangaroo to dispute ALL the perceptions that so many have had that it is.
We all wait – as what late OTC said, never mind how many many-hours or years that it will take.
Your honour, Prakash, we are waiting, hear ye, hear ye.