And that is why Singapore's judicial system will never exists as
a wholly independant enitity as long as she is ruled by a small
oligarchy.
Originally posted by walesa:
The lawyer didn't do anything wrong. In any court of law (at least,
in civilised societies where the rule of law reigns), any ambiguity
not clearly established would result, de facto, in the benefit of
the doubt being given to the [b]defendant. As a matter
of fact, the only amazing farce that has arisen from this entire
episode stems from the fact that the defence counsel even needs to point out the
obvious ambiguity to the bench, only to see the judge (effectively
a puppet in a politicised judiciary) - in spite of his excessive
legal training and experience - dismiss the argument so
hastily.
It's obvious, if anything, the shambles known as a trial (which, in
truth, is pretty much a politicised theatre) is nothing more than a
facade which effectively masks another novelty - this regime having
the most expensive theatre in the world in the form of a court of
law.
I suppose this must be another wonderful demonstration of how the
state and party are inseperable entities when state apparatus could
be so freely utilised as a tool of oppression...[/b]
