The Attorney-General’s efforts may be having the opposite of its intended effect
A week ago, news that the Attorney-General would be initiating contempt proceedings against a deputy editor from The Wall Street Journal was greeted with some surprise by local observers, who wondered why the government was charging a member of the Journal’s staff so soon after the Journal itself had been found guilty of contempt in November 2008. Yet the High Court’s judgment just some short days later (finding the defendant guilty of the charges) hardly elicited any astonishment, even as it triggered the usual consternations from the foreign press about an injudicious and politically-biased bench.
Such pronouncements are to be expected, and they are probably indicative of liberal sentiment in Singapore which has long questioned the extensive tally of court decisions that have gone against the government’s critics. Some questioned the seemingly discretionary nature of the decision to prosecute the Journal and its staff with such zeal; in contrast the Attorney-General has not seen fit to go after the International Bar Association, whose damning indictment of the judiciary in 2008 provided the material for the Journal articles which prompted the contempt proceedings in the first place. Perhaps it is simply too much work to charge every single critic – after the judgment, international wires and NGOs reiterated that the government used the courts to “stifle dissent”; the Journal itself remained stoically unrepentant in its public statements.
Yet the reality is probably more complicated. One empirical study1 argued that the judiciary is more independent than commonly believed in spite of various legislative encumbrances: the government is pragmatic enough to recognise that the court cannot simply be a slavish creature if it is to retain credibility. The trial against the Journal’s deputy editor is a case in point – the presiding judge seems to have disregarded the prosecution’s arguments about “aggravating factors” that merited a strict sentence and moderated the fine meted out.
Even so, the same study noted dryly that the Singapore establishment seemed to view criticism of its system as due to foreign critics and lawyers having “a knowledge of the law inferior to that of their Singaporean counterparts…[and] based on wrong legal interpretation”. Perspectives and priorities certainly differ. Unlike in Western systems, the pursuit of justice may not merit boundless exertions: optimising efficiency, for example, is also an important issue2.
Furthermore the judiciary views its role as upholding the rule of law rather than to provide a check on the government or to uphold Constitutional supremacy. In cases such as that involving the Journal or the host of defamation suits brought by the government against its critics, the courts are therefore – in a manner of speaking – largely hostage to legal precedent. It would have been mightily difficult for any judge – even one with a very liberal temper – to overturn precedent built up by more than two decades of such cases.
In this context the Attorney-General’s Chambers has a rather significant part in maintaining judiciary credibility as much depends on the kind of cases that it brings before the courts. Unfortunately it seems to have rediscovered a fervour for safeguarding the “integrity and independence” of the courts not seen since the late 1980s: the recent cases against the Journal and blogger Gopalan Nair, jailed for three months after being found guilty of insulting a judge, seem to be in this vein. Yet by initiating cases in which the bench has little room for manoeuvre, and whose outcomes would also certainly bolster the critics’ claims about a politicised judiciary, the Chambers could inadvertently be bringing about the very outcome it had sought to prevent.
***
1 Ross Worthington, “Between Hermes and Themis: An Empirical Study of the Contemporary Judiciary in Singapore”, Journal of Law and Society, Vol. 28, No. 4 (Dec., 2001), pp. 490-519
2 Ibid, citing M. O’Kane, ‘Eye of a Tiger’ Guardian Weekly, 20 May 1995, 4: Then-Chief Justice Yong Pung How reportedly told an audience in 1995 that, “We have now reached the stage when criminal cases can be disposed by the high court in about six months. Criminal appeals are disposed of by the court of appeal in about six months. And condemned prisoners can be disposed of by the prison authorities in about six months.”
—–
HELP keep the voice of TOC alive!
If you like this article, please consider a small donation to help theonlinecitizen.com stay alive. Please note that we can only accept donations from Singaporeans. Thank you for your assistance.Do you have a flair for writing? Volunteer with us. Email us your full name and contact details to theonlinecitizen@gmail.com
You plant an apple seed and you get apples.
“One empirical study argued that the judiciary is more independent than commonly believed in spite of various legislative encumbrances:”
If you can talk about “empirical study”, then perhaps you can also bother to highlight the study of WHO IS iN CHARGE OF PROVIDING SALARY for our kangaro-erm, I mean Judges.
You may also try to study on the fate of one ernest judge that has failed to fine late JBJ enough for him to warrant bankcruptcy, of which he is demoted after that.
“empirical study” ? Yes, but base on our judicry system?!?!?
“In cases such as that involving the Journal or the host of defamation suits brought by the government against its critics, the courts are therefore – in a manner of speaking – largely hostage to legal precedent. It would have been mightily difficult for any judge – even one with a very liberal temper – to overturn precedent built up by more than two decades of such cases.”
—–
The question is, who created the precedents in the first place? Why does Singapore uniquely have such harsh defamation laws? There certainly isn’t anything particularly unique about Singapore’s culture or environment that requires tougher protection for people’s reputations, so what exactly motivated the judges of over the past two decades to tighten our defamation laws?
Also, is it really that hard to overturn precedents? Singapore judges overrule long-decided cases all the time, even those by the Court of Appeal. What is the reason for the reluctance when it comes to liberalising our defamation laws, which are surely far too draconian and detrimental to our reputation?
“One empirical study1 argued that the judiciary is more independent than commonly believed in spite of various legislative encumbrances”
who wrote this? it sounds more like a subtle attempt to say that the courts here are actually not biased. how can toc publish this kind of subtle propaganda??
Observe deeper and you shall see.
There was never a beginning in the 1st place.
Did someone here ever ask why the government here want to sue the editors oversea ?
It is plain simple to see. Because the government knows that the oversea editors have high probability of paying the fine which is paltry (only few thousands, not hundred of thousands), and if they pay the fine, it at least implant fear into editors and other “independent” writers writing against the Singapore government.
Now here’s the catch, the government deliberately make it paltry fine for those they sue since they know the editors will rather pay up than drag the case. The government’s intention is to show they will fine those editors if they criticise the government, and that will dissuade others from doing the same.
Do you think Wall Street Journal will fight the case if they are asked to pay hundred of thousand dollars of fine ? They will likely to fight the case, but the government here just want to set precedent to warn against criticism.
Now if Wall Street Journal choose to fight the case , then it will backfire on Singapore government, and kangaroo has no place to hop around.
Some questioned the seemingly discretionary nature of the decision to prosecute the Journal and its staff with such zeal; in contrast the Attorney-General has not seen fit to go after the International Bar Association,
========
If you are familiar with Operation Spectrum and the clash with FEER during then, the PAP govt point of view is always that as long as foreign publications are writing “as outsiders for outsiders”, they are quite fine with you saying anything.
That is why they don’t bother with IBR.
What they are most concerned about is that, as outsiders, you write “for Singaporeans to read”, meaning any newspaper or magazine with a circulation in Singapore.
As long as the typical Singaporean, not those who surf Internet for sites like these, do not get a chance to read those views, they are fine.
i don’t get the logic:
the ag sues, the court decides. the case: that the court is partial.
if court rules in favor of ag, then it implies, the courts is really partial after all.
otherwise , the court is impartial.
so why ag would like to prove something he likes to dis-prove???
that’s not a very smart move? izzit not?
surely we can afford to have a wiser buy up there looking after our justice matters.
kakakuli ,
the point of all this exercise is simply to dissuade overseas editors that have influential to write against the kangaroo, so it does not matter whether it is illogical or irrational as long as the message is conveyed in the form of suing and fining. Plain and simple. No rocket science. The purpose is just to create a climate of fear for those who write anything against the coffers.
It’s easy to change reality but it is difficult to change perception. Once the court is perceptive to be bias and unjust (regardless of it’s accuracy), the court loses it’s effectiveness and crime becomes rampant.
In my opinion, Singapore’s court is perceptive to be bias against men and unjust towards opponents of the government. Fair or unfair, this works to the disadvantage of Singapore in the long run.
Our judiciary needs to take this serious and change the perception. It needs be fair and independent. Judges needs to be promoted based on the merit and accuracy of their judgment (number of appeals and number of rulings overturned) instead of being appointed by Government officials.
I had a slightly different interpretation of Worthington’s argument. I believe he’s suggesting that the need to appear efficient and impartial (for the sake of Sg’s international reputation) at least with respect to commercial law is a necessary CONSTRAINT on what is otherwise a tool for the government to wield against political dissenters. Worthington, elsewhere, has published a damning indictment of Singapore as an extremely successful neo-Gramscian state, wielding power through institutional design (see his book, ‘Governance in Singapore’).