bold printOriginally posted by robertteh:
It will be nice if we have this kind of court where the judgment
will be fair and not swayed by political power.
Mancha
Judges are also people like you and me. I can trust them to do
their duty according to their conscience, and of their
learning.
Judges are not ordinary people like you and me who could act
according to our instinct as they are paid and employed and vested
with authority to decide on a verdict according to prescribed
rules, conventions, laws and regulations.
Singapore has abolished the jury system otherwise it will still be
able to talk about conscience. Once the jury system is abolished,
judiciary system is entirely subject to manipulation by the
politicians who now de facto is the direct employer who could
determine the wellbeing, promotion and transfer and deployment of
judges.
Although politicians like to present our judges as independent in
practice they are not as can be seen in transfer to judges in the
past after a politically motivated defamation case was not adjudged
to their favor.
How objective and fair will our judges be in hearing politically
motivated defamation suit against oppositions or people who are
threats to the government because they are able to tell the
truths.
Mancha
Judges hear suits brought up by people. All the defamation suits
you refer to are brought up by individuals who feel that their
reputation have been put to question by the defendants. Defamation
suits are largely private suits, and not political.
Judges may hear cases brought up by the people, they have the
power to throw out cases on flimsy ground. Apart from abolition of
the conscientious jury system, our politicians over time have
increased our police power in interrogating accused so that the
politicians through their subordinate police department could have
access to all evidences while the accused are being prevented from
similar access or reliance on fair evidences found by the police
who could also deny the accused of habeas corpus to protect him
from wrongful accusations or prove his innocence.
How true is this presumed fairness of the judges in our
politically motivated defamation suits against people who
criticised the ruling party during or prior to elections ?
Mancha
You cannot defame the government. You can defame individuals.
Please get it past you prejudice that the government do not sue.
Individuals sue. eg Lee Kuan Yew, Lee Hsien Loong, Goh Chok Tong,
even Chee Soon Juan. You get sued for defamation for saying things
that are not true against a person, causing him to lose esteem in
the eyes of the public.
While it is true that one cannot defame an organization and only
individuals being defamed can sue for defamation, there is nothing
to stop the court from legalistically proceeding with flimsy
politically motivated cases which would have been thrown out in the
first instance if brought by ordinary citizens.
For example, if some one provokes another person into exchanges
with remarks like "I call you a liar and if you do not sue me, then
you are a liar" as has happened in the last election and such a
person defamed our leaders and the case goes to court, will our
judges throw out the case if it is brought up by our powerful
provocative politician? I think you should know what the outcome
will be based on past politicially motivated defamation cases where
innuendos of the remotest remarks were deemed defamatory even where
they were uttered in the heat of electioneering.
Will the judges be able to exercise their judgments fairly,
independently and have they done so in the defamation suit against
Tan Liang Hong?
Mancha
TLH knows very well that the worst case scenario is that he will be
rendered bankrupt. Why did he not stay and fight like JBJ? TLH is
up to no good. He is a coward. He could not take the heat and fled
the kitchen. Good for us, we don't need a fighter like him.
It is a different issue you are bringing up when you asked why
TLH did not stay on to fight his case. In the first place what
chance has TLH got if he did try to stay on and fight based on what
have already happened in JBJ past defamation cases with our
political leaders.
There are many frivolous politically motivated defamation suits
which could be dismissed without defendents being called to answer
charges as it is more than obvious that the suits were politically
motivated or alleged remarks made in the course of justifiable
public discussions during heated electioneering?
Mancha
What motivates the (again) individual is not a concern of the
court. What concerns the court is "Does the plaintiff have a
case?"
Again this mantra: Critise the policy, not insult the person.
You have sought to present a theoretical situation only when in
practice judges must look over their shoulders to see what will
happen based on past cases if they do not toe the policies as
uttered by our politicians.
How objective are the judges in not allowing themselves to be
influenced by ministers' prior defence of durai in earlier NKF
denials over many issues like the level of reserve and ratio of
patients' subsidies and Peanut lady's remark on Durai's salary in
this instance?
Mancha
The judges presides over what goes on in court, and take into
consideration what is presented in court. He does not, like us,
take into consideration what what shown in television in the past
and what's in the New Paper or Stomp.
Yes, in theory and according to legal textbook it is true our
judges are independent but in practice they have to worry how to
decide on a politically motivated defamation case brought against
by our powerful politicians.
robertteh you need to be objective lah.
By replying you according to judgments and verdicts in past
politically motivated defamation cases, I think I am
objective.
