An open letter to Chief Justice Chan Sek Keong

Home

Perspective

Special Feature

Thursday, 07 January 2010

Chee Soon Juan

Dear Chief Justice Chan Sek Keong,

I refer to the keynote address you gave to the New York State Bar Association in October last year. Given that the Opening of the Legal Year is upon us again, I wish to highlight a few points in your speech that were at once telling and, frankly, rather disturbing.

Defending freedom of speech, then and now

You started off by recounting how you and two others (Messrs Tommy Koh and TPB Menon) had written to the Straits Times to defend a Professor Sheridan who had criticised the government for its choice of Singapore's Chief Justice.

Mr Sheridan was attacked by a lawyer who argued that the professor should not comment on issues he knew nothing about. You had then, rightly, pointed out that Professor Sheridan was merely exercising his right of free speech.

The year was 1958 during which you were a law student and the government was the British colonial one which had appointed another Briton, instead of a Singaporean, as CJ.

I am uncertain why you related this anecdote which you left unattended after its mention. But I could not suppress a smile, wry as it was, when I thought about how something similar happened years later when the PAP Government made the same accusation of the Law Society under its president, Mr Francis Seow.

Not only did Mr Lee Kuan Yew assert that the Law Society was meddling where it was not supposed to but proceeded to amend the Legal Profession Act to outlaw the Society from commenting on legislation or its passage.

This was in 1986 when you were no longer a student but a High Court Judge. I wonder if you felt then that the Law Society's right to freedom of speech should have been defended as vigorously as you defended Professor Sheridan's.

Whose values?

You related to your listeners how Mr Lee had explained why he had to use the Internal Security Act to detain without trial "political offenders". As a judge and Chief Justice, would you explain to Singaporeans what the term "political offender" is? What law has the offender transgressed? How long or in what way should he be punished? Does he get to defend himself in a fair trial?

I also wonder if you would have a change in opinion now that some of these detainees are coming forward to recount their ordeals while they were detained, including accounts of how they were tortured and kept in solitary confinement. Among them are Messrs Chye Thye Poh who was imprisoned for 32 years, Lim Hock Siew (20 years), Ho Piao (19 years), Said Zahari (17 years), Poh Soo Kai (17 years), Michael Fernandez (9 years), and the late Lim Chin Siong (7 years).

Additionally, given the de-classification of archived material by the British Foreign Office that reveal that many of these offenders were held by Mr Lee Kuan Yew for political reasons rather than national security ones, do you hold that these detentions are right and just? Can these former detainees come before the courts now to seek redress?

You then went on to reaffirm in your speech the supremacy of the rule of law, and that the "fundamental principles" of the English legal system and ours are the same. But you quickly qualified that the "public law is quite different since this body of law must reflect the political, social and cultural values of the people."

You are obviously very concerned that the legal system here be adapted to fit the "political, social and cultural values" of Singapore. You mentioned the phrase no less than six times.

Which begs the questions: What are our political, social, and cultural values? How did they come about? Did these values evolve through time or did Mr Lee foist them on society? In other words, are these really the "values of the people" or values of Mr Lee?

I raise these questions because in your speech you acknowledged that: "If you study the Singapore statute book today, you will find MM Lee’s precepts and values reflected in all the laws." (emphasis mine) And why is this the case? Presumably because, as you say, Mr Lee "was aware of the power of law as an instrument for political, social or economic change."

If these values are indeed Mr Lee's does it not follow that the legal system and legislation have been moulded by one man to suit his own values? It must be pointed out that the MM, pre-eminent as he is in your eyes, still remains a partisan player in Singapore's politics and has a vested interest in retaining control of political power.

Which brings me to a couple of rather disturbing questions: Isn't the rule of law and the legal system supposed to rise above the values of any one man? If the concept and principles of the rule of law are so malleable, then whoever controls a government could change the laws to suit his or her own values and rule with impunity. How is that useful in a civilised society?

Given these questions, would you not at least entertain the possibility that Mr Lee Kuan Yew emphasizes the need to modify Singapore legal system based on politico-socio-cultural considerations because the English system ensures that the rule of law and its twin, democracy, are not undermined by any one politician or political party whereas the one in Singapore does not?

I hope it is also not lost on you that under Mr Lee's rule society in Singapore is thoroughly Westernised, at least as far as the consumeristic side is concerned. Giorgio Armani and Yves Saint Laurent are famous residents on Orchard Road, in a couple of months time we will have the glitz of Las Vegas adorning our skyline, Universal Studios will descend upon Pulau Belakang Mati, and the F1 has become a mainstay in our sports calendar even though the spectators are mainly (rich) Europeans.

Even our HDB estates are given goosebump-raising names like Ang Mo Kio Green, Toa Payoh Bloom, and Kim Keat Ville.

The truth is that the PAP Government wants the Western highlife but is desperately working to keep at bay the democratic values that come along with it.

Or is it rule by law?

I fear that you have confused the term "rule of law" with "rule by law". The former refers to a system where laws apply equally to rulers and the ruled. Rule by law, in contrast, refers to a system which uses laws to suppress democratic freedoms so much so that rulers and the ruled are governed according to different standards.

Which one applies to Singapore? Let's see:

First, the opposition is prohibited from conducting political events such as cycling tours whereas Mr Lee Hsien Loong and colleagues are free to hold such activities.

The authorities explain that outdoor political activities are banned. In the PM's case, the activity was not conducted by his political party (it was organised by his party's community foundation) whereas the activity that was banned was organised by the Workers' Party. Singaporeans recognise the guile.

Second, while the Consumers Association of Singapore (CASE) freely conducts an assembly and procession to commemorate the World Consumers Rights Day, my colleagues and I are being prosecuted for doing the same thing. The Deputy Public Prosecutor in one of the trials said that the CASE event was a "walkathon" and therefore not a problem. How does one argue with such legal brilliance?

Rule of law or rule by law?

More logic

You also declared in your speech that "If Singapore lacks anything in public governance, it is not law or the rule of law. It is a fundamental tenet of the government that the law must be obeyed, and the government is the first to obey the laws of the state."

You mean like how our ministers had illegally entered polling stations in the 1997 elections? And when pointed out, you (then the AG) said that because they were within the polling stations and not loitering outside that these ministers were, therefore, not in breach of any law?

Did you not consider the Parliamentary Elections Act Section 39(4)(c) which states that “The presiding officer shall exclude all other persons except 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”?

You then told your audience that “the judiciary...requires an independent-minded legal profession to act for individuals to enforce and protect their rights.”

I couldn't agree more. The fly in the ointment, however, is that in Singapore the legal profession, as I have mentioned, is told to shut up by Legal Profession Act. Can the legal profession, embodied in the Law Society, be independent-minded if the Government curtails its right to speak? Does logic not devour your statement?

To support your contention that there is the rule of law in Singapore, you give a hypothetical example of parliament passing a law that all babies born with blue eyes shall be sentenced to death and then ask, rhetorically, whether such a law is a law at all?

You answered your own question thus: "The problem with this hypothetical is that it assumes two facts. First, that Parliament is mad enough to enact such a law. Second, that any judge is mad enough to enforce it."

In your next sentence you, quite bizarrely, concluded: "But the very fact that we still debate this sort of question shows that the rule of law is very much alive and well in Singapore."

How is the discussion of nonsensical hypotheticals an indication of the health of the rule of law in a country?

Allow me to give you a more realistic example. Some of my colleagues and I have been found guilty for taking part in an assembly without a permit (we were distributing flyers) intended to "demonstrate opposition to the actions of the Government."

When the Executive says that it is illegal to oppose Government actions without a permit, is this in keeping with the principles of the rule of law? Now this would be a real debate, one that Singaporeans will get to hear when our appeal goes before the High Court.

Finally, you said that "any citizen can find redress against any other, however powerfully placed..." I tried. On two occasions. Actually I wasn't seeking redress, I was just trying to defend myself against MM Lee when he sued me for defamation. But I couldn't because Mr Lee applied for and was awarded summary judgments, which meant that there would be no trials.

Given the gravity of the subject I would be grateful if you could give some thought to the issues and questions I have raised in this letter, and address them in your speech at the Opening of the Legal Year on Saturday.

I wish you a good 2010.

Sincerely,

Chee Soon Juan

cc.

Mr Michael Getnick, President of the New York State Bar Association
Mr Michael Galligan, Chairman of the International Section of the New York State Bar Association

Share this article:

Comments (10)

Thu 07 Jan 2010 6:48 AM | Robox

I'm writing this at 6.45am. But as early in the morning as it is, I'll bet Resident Vandal BryanT will beat me to it and be the first to have written something in response to this article.

His fixation with 'fixing" Dr Chee should be legendary by now.

Thu 07 Jan 2010 10:29 AM | quantum

Yes, BryanT is very fast, in showing his ignorance on the subject of Law.

Thu 07 Jan 2010 10:59 AM | maxchew - I want my Merc 380 SJ1 and million$$$$$salary

What people will do just to remain in near-absolute power and $$$$$$ wealth and perks (SJ1).
From the ministers to the perm secs to the chief justice and his judicial officers to the CP and down to the scholar commanders and the supts/dsps/asps and finally the rank-n-file.......this is what democrats like Dr CSJ are facing now.
But change will come as sure as the sun rises, make no mistake about this.

Thu 07 Jan 2010 12:06 PM | Cheers

Robox - not true leh 12.10pm Brandt on medical leave?.

Topic very cheem needs to form committee to deal with this one

I'm writing this at 6.45am. But as early in the morning as it is, I'll bet Resident Vandal BryanT will beat me to it and be the first to have written something in response to this article.

His fixation with 'fixing" Dr Chee should be legendary by now.

Thu 07 Jan 2010 12:15 PM | BryanT - What the people don't want.

Health-warning (again) – please scroll fast, unless tempted to read. Also, long comment ahead.

First, there are all these callings to “scroll-skip” my comments - “ignore”, they say . Then, now there seems to be those who tries to anticipate them. Not that any of these matters, and I will gladly relinquish to anyone the (dubious) honour of being first to post here, not that it was my objective in the first place.

Actually I read this open-letter article over breakfast this morning, but decided that I was better off catching up on Alex Au's other articles in his series “Two oppositions, and why in the long run, they may not matter at all”. (...thanks to SDP for the notification of its existence)

(BTW, anyone figured out why only two oppositions?)

Anyway, from AA's first article in that series, I realised that I failed to properly read a quote by JBJ that surfaced as a result of the recent debacle between WP and RP (no thanks to TOC). The issue was over whether JBJ was an advocate of civil disobedience.

JBJ had this to say about civil disobedience : “Before you can effectively launch a disobedience campaign, you’ve got to educate the people; you’ve got to get them ready to participate in it. That is just not possible today in Singapore, because of the fear that girds Singaporeans.”

AA interprets it more generally : “...any political historian will tell you that much progress towards human rights and social equity in world history have been due to some measure of civil disobedience -- but it is a tactic that needs wide support before it can be used effectively, and currently there isn't wide support in Singapore.”

The consensus is that people just don't want it.

JBJ attributed fear within the people as the obstacle to participation in civil disobedience activities. CSJ would blame the government for creating that perceived fear, and probably add apathy and indifference to the list of reasons (and blame the government for those as well).

I think there are more. Perhaps people just do not see the causes which affect their lives adversely enough to resort to civil disobedience. Perhaps they see a government that make occasional mistakes, but whose track-record indicate pro-activeness, good planning, and foresight. Why risk what they have socially and economically for an unknown, and an unknown which can be exploited for other causes that they do not identify with at that? The images of what happens in other countries are on the TV (not just MSM's) for them to see.

SDP will say that such a mentality of being risk-adverse and being easily satisfied is a symptom of short-sightedness (plus PAP-induced brainwash). But is the SDP (and some other opposition parties) not equally guilty of exploiting people's short-sightedness when they raise their hues-and-cries on immediate issues?

Thu 07 Jan 2010 12:53 PM | Robox - To quantum

Re: "Yes, BryanT is very fast, in showing his ignorance on the subject of Law."

Yes, when he OD's on the use of his favorite words to use against Dr Chee and the SDP - law-breaking - he sure displays the fact that he, along with his political masters, are completely ignorant of a very important deficiency of theirs: they don't understand the FULL SCOPE of the rule of law in any one case, but they feel at complete liberty to comment on how laws were broken by those they accuse but not by themselves in the first place.

Does BryanT want to know what a laughing stock he has made himself to be?

Or does it not matter as long he gets to collect the cash?

Thu 07 Jan 2010 1:07 PM | quantum

BryanT said: "The consensus is that people just don't want it."

Have you just conducted a poll, election or a referendum? Or are you living in a dream world?

Please provide reference to support your claim.

Thu 07 Jan 2010 4:57 PM | g_e - Gorilla in the room? What gorilla?

BryanT, you have used up your entire poison pen allowance waffling about everything EXCEPT the points politely raised by Dr. Chee vis-a-vis CJ Chan Sek Keong's paying lip service to the rule of law. Don't think we haven't noticed.

"Actually I read this... but decided that I was better off catching up on Alex Au's other articles..." Really? Or is 'nonplussed' the real reason you weren't first off the mark today?

Should that have been: "Actually I read this open-letter article over breakfast this morning, became nauseous at the thought of having to twist it in such a way that it wouldn't make me appear even more severely retarded than usual, and finally decided that in this instance discretion would be the better part of valour and I was infinitely better off catching up on Alex Au's other articles"?

You haven't mentioned CSK's name even once. Can't you at least make some attempt to champion his outstanding legal opinion that Goh Chok Tong, Tony Tan and Lee Hsien Loong being caught INSIDE a Cheng San GRC polling station without authorisation on Polling Day 1997 were not committing a grave offence as 'that's not the same as being within 200 metres of it' as prohibited by law?

Let me remind you again: the theme is Chan Sek Keong and perceived hypocrisy, not Alex Au and opposition tactics. Now, for pity's sake man, get a move on and do your usual or you'll let the side down.

Thu 07 Jan 2010 5:55 PM | Newton Heath - Hats Off

Hats off to Dr Chee!

Thu 07 Jan 2010 10:42 PM | fongmy

Dear Dr.Chee Soon Juan,

Sir, Greeting's Good Day To You, Family & SDP.

I'm very glad to read your above letter address to CJ, you're now hitting the Nail right at the Head !

Please hit it Deep........

Your Challenge will gain great respects from our peoples.

Yours Truly,
Fong M.Y.