Is there a problem with our legal system? Or the values of the
Judges within the system? Its not about the PM having influence
over the appointment of judges, or the executive having the power
to appoint Judicial Commissioners.
Its about the values of behind the law of the land. The law created
in protect the individual rights of the system. Judges that do what
is right, and not just follow the Law to the letter. Isn't the Law
a consequence of the rights of an individual, created to protect
those rights? Does the law in Singapore protect those rights or
hold such values?
In 1995
Chief Justice Yong held that any which deprived a person of his
life or personally liberty was valid and binding as along as it was
validly passed by parliament. The court he said, 'is not concerned
with whether it is also fair, just and reasonable as
well.**
This is the Chief Justice that was appointed by the Executive who
was a classmate if Lee Kuan Yew.
Most recently, in the case of Falungong detainees.
Excerpts from Epoch Times :
http://en.epochtimes.com/news/7-6-10/56345.html
'The Prosecution Ignores
Inconvenient Evidence
The defendants raised several points regarding the evidence
presented, and also the evidence the prosecution chose to
withhold.
The prosecution submitted a series of photographs, which it claimed
supported the charge. However, there was no date- or timestamp on
the photographsthey could have been taken at any time. Further,
only one of the photographs showed definitively the location where
it was taken; the rest of the photographs bore no signs identifying
the scene, and could have been taken in a number of places.
None of the defendants appear in the one photo that was
identifiably taken at the scene of the alleged violation. The
prosecution submitted no photographic evidence placing the
defendants at the scene when the alleged violation occurred.'
'Judge Tung said, "The accused say that if the video were shown in
the courtroom, everyone would see how peaceful and harmonious the
scene really was. This shows that the defendants were indeed at the
scene.
"I agree with the prosecutor that you have done great things. But I
am not here to judge whether you are right or wrong; my only
concern whether you have permits. You committed an offence because
you did not have permits."'
Judge Tung: "But I am not here to judge whether you are right or
wrong"
So the law does not protect what is right or does it?
Chief Justice Yong "(The court)
is not concerned with whether it is also fair, just and reasonable
as well."
We have a Chief Justice that is not concerned whether the a law or
Judgement is just?
The Definition of justice
1. The quality of being just; fairness.
2. The principle of moral rightness; equity.
3. Conformity to moral rightness in action or attitude;
righteousness.
4. The upholding of what is just, especially fair treatment and due
reward.
5. Law The administration and procedure of law.
6. Conformity to truth, fact, or sound reason:
If you agree that with the above definitions of justice, do our
courts then deliver justice when our judges words contradict most
of the above definition of justice? Or our justices(judges) just?
Discuss! GO! 
Try not to get derailed people