This post is at least a year old. Some of the links in this post may no longer work correctly.
International Bar Association
The International Bar Association’s Human Rights Institute (IBAHRI) would like to correct some inaccurate comments made in the opinion piece “Singapore has an Independent Judiciary” (Wall Street Journal, 23 July 2008) by Ms S. Radha, Press Secretary to the Minister for Law, Singapore.
The opinion piece was made in response to the Wall Street Journal’s editorial ‘Judging Singapore’s Judiciary‘ (15 July 2008).
Ms Radha asserts that the IBAHRI’s report, Prosperity versus individual rights: Human rights, democracy and the rule of law in Singapore, contains “baseless” and “vague” allegations about lack of impartiality and independence in the court’s consideration of defamation suits; and “errors of fact” about Supreme Court judges.
However, as readers may see for themselves by accessing the report on our website, the observations made are based on comprehensive examples and evidence, and the “errors of fact” she quotes are in fact misstatements of what the report actually says.
The IBAHRI’s concern about defamation suits initiated by People’s Action Party (PAP) litigants is evidenced by detailed case studies, court reports and a list of the awarded damages made in such defamation cases (see page 60 of the report).
This list indicates that damages awarded by the court to successful PAP litigants are many times the amount awarded in non-PAP litigant cases. Contrary to Ms Radha’s article, these actions have not all been initiated in response to “scurrilous allegations of corruption”, but have often been in response to relatively minor comments or claims made by opposition members or candidates, or respected international publications.
Ms Radha tries to deflect criticism from our recommendation that Singapore should “put an end to the transfer of judges between executive and judicial roles” by stating that “there is no need…because Supreme Court judges cannot be transferred and there has never been such a transfer.”
The concern voiced in the report, however, (on page 52) was not about Supreme Court judges, but that “Magistrates and district judges…are rotated to various positions within the Legal Service…which appears to be…a breach of the separation of powers doctrine”.
The report does not claim that Supreme Court judges are transferred in this way, and its main point on this important aspect of establishing the independence of the judiciary thus remains unaddressed.
Ms Radha also states that the report denies that Supreme Court judges enjoy security of tenure until the age of 65. This is incorrect. On page 55, the report states that they do.
However, the report expresses concern about those Supreme Court judges who remain in their positions after the age of 65, and are from then on in their positions at the will of the Prime Minister. The report notes the IBAHRI’s concerns about the lack of tenure for all other judges, including High Court judges.
Below is the letter from Lee Hsien Loong’s press secretary to the Wall Street Journal in response to the article Judging Singapore’s Judiciary.
Singapore has an independent judiciary
July 23, 2008
Your editorial “Judging Singapore’s Judiciary” (July 15) perpetuates the baseless allegations and errors of fact in the Report of the International Bar Association’s Human Rights Institute.
The IBA Human Rights Institute’s criticism of Singapore’s judiciary is contradicted by the International Bar Association itself. Last year, IBA President Fernando Pombo said publicly that Singapore “has an outstanding legal profession, an outstanding judiciary, an outstanding academical world in relation to the law.” You have suppressed this, and instead attributed the IBA Human Rights Institute’s criticisms to the IBA, when the IBA President had stated the very opposite!
You also repeat the vague allegations in the Institute’s Report that defamation suits involving the ruling party lack “impartiality and/or independence.” The decisions of the Courts in these cases are matters of public record, and anyone questioning the verdicts can analyze and examine the decisions properly. Yet the Report contains nothing to back these claims.
Singapore ministers and government officials are held to the highest standards of probity and integrity. This has been recognized by international agencies like the Property and Environment Research Center and Transparency International. That is why investors put in billions of dollars into Singapore, and why Singapore is an oasis of prosperity and stability in Southeast Asia with one of the highest per-capita incomes in the world.
Thus when scurrilous allegations of corruption are made, ministers and officials defamed will sue to clear their name. We see no virtue in becoming a society where anyone can freely publish untruths without having to back them up in court.
Further, contrary to the Report, all Supreme Court judges in Singapore enjoy “security of tenure” until retirement at 65. There is also no need to “put an end to the transfer of judges between executive and judicial roles” because Supreme Court judges cannot be transferred and there has never been such a transfer.
Western newspapers, NGOs and human rights groups like the IBA’s Human Rights Institute prescribe Western norms as the way for other countries to “join the ranks of modern democracies.” But not every Western norm is suitable to all countries in the world. Singapore cannot allow those who carry no responsibility for Singapore’s future to dictate its political and legal systems.
Singaporeans know that they have a noncorrupt government and an independent judiciary. They live in one of the top five most transparent countries in the world, with the freedom to express their views, oppose the government and take part in free and fair elections. Singaporeans will choose for themselves the shape and norms for their society.
Press Secretary to the Minister for Law