Dear Moderators,
I am posting this as a new thread rather than as part of the
previous one by Atobe because I don't want this post to sink in the
middle of 5 pages of long debate.
Basically, this is a letter that I sent to TODAY 2 days ago,
which apparently got ignored by TODAY (or censored away by its
editors anyway).
I am going to be trying to send this in to the Straits Times
too, although I sincerely doubt that they will publish
it.
Rgds,
the (returning pikamaster)
The Letter is as follows:
(letter length: 497 words)
LETTER TITLE: Why the Mistakes, MinLaw?
I am a citizen who is sorely disappointed with the quality of
MinLaw's criticism of the IBAHRI after reading the full text of the
IBAHRI's report.
Para 2 of MinLaw's 9 July response admits that it only perused the
Executive Summary. If it had bothered to read all the first 30
pages, it would have seen 5 substantial quotations from its 9 April
response, which it says was ignored by the IBAHRI. And there are
more following.
PERC is quoted in a two-liner on page 21 of the report. The Report
does not quote extensively from PERC has MinLaw would prefer, but
it provides Transparency International's and the World Bank's
comments, which run along the same lines.
Para 5 of MinLaw's reply pounces on one single comment on page 70.
In my view, that comment is a protection against the evasive "but
it has not happened before" response. In fact, the monetary
tables on page 60 are sufficient to substantiate IBAHRI's "grave
accuasation". Why is there a $307,350 disparity between the
total amounts awarded to the PAP litigants and those awarded to the
non-PAP litigants? And why is the highest litigation award for a
PAP member - MM in this case - $500,000 (1994) which is 5 times as
much as the maximum awarded to a non-PAP litigant (1995). Is it
that some allegations can be more "scurrilous and untrue" than
others?
MinLaw's assertion in para 7 is simply untrue and totally ignores
the IBAHRI's report, which goes at length to rebut and clarify
inaccuracies in the 9 April letter by MinLaw to IBAHRI on its
report. For instance, it notes Justice Brooke's full comments with
regard to the Privy Council in 1989, articulated on pages 31 and
32, in which is stated that "In due course the Privy Council was to
be critical of the decision of a district court judge not to
transfer the retrial to the High Court" and thus puts the comment
that the verdict was "unusual" in a formal, rather than critical,
context.
In addition, most of paras 7 and 8 are focused on shoring up the
government's superiority, not in providing any fresh
counter-criticism to any part of the content of the 72-page report.
In general, it seems that MinLaw aims to focus exclusively on an
East-West divide, without taking to heart IBAHRI's exhortation "to
engage with the international community in a more constructive
manner". MinLaw has clearly failed to engage IBAHRI in a proper
meaningful discussion.
I hope that the Law Society can offer a more informed response than
MinLaw did, being as professional as their critics from the IBAHRI.
I do hope that the Law Society's reply would not regurgitate any of
the sections of its 25 April letter quoted on page 68 of the IBAHRI
report.
At the end of the day, MinLaw's reply only reflects poorly our
ability in engaging in healthy political discussion. I do hope our
authorities can be more cosntructive and mature in the
future.