found this in singabloodypore and thought forummers might be
interested:
IBAHRI response to Wall Street Journal op-ed, 23 July 2008
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.