A government normally refers to the executive branch of the
government. All over the world, parliamentary democracy has defined
government as (1) Executive (2) Legislature (3) Judiciary with each
having its own role and responsibility for the larger purpose of
government the whole country with equity, fairness, justice and
equality of citizens before the law.
There is a common practice to separate the role of executive,
legislature and judiciary in order to be fair, just as to law and
fact not to allow any executive to govern all in one.
Owing to a loophole in our Constitution, in Singapore, our
government has been given certain discretionary power to pass laws
to restrict the rights of citizens as to what is moral, what is
public order and what is interest of the public as posted in
"Definition of True Democracy".
So our government has indirectly over time restricted citizens'
constitutional rights including their rights to be heard as to law
and facts in a trial with equity, fairness in our court.
Our government by abolishing the jury trials in serious cases is
leaving every issue of laws and fact to the judge who in turn is
appointed by or with the sanction of the executive who is in
control of the prosecution.
The judge is supposed to have fair and is now given a free hand to
decide on the laws and fact. But the judge also knows full well
that his career path and remuneration is determined by and with
recommendation of the executive.
So when a judge is hearing a political defamation suit who will he
pay attention to in hearing of law and facts.
The reason for abolishing of jury system as we have heard from our
politicians is that sometimes the jury might be swayed or tempted
by good defence argument to free criminals based on emotive
presentation by smart defence lawyers.
But is it not equally true that the judge may well listen to
over-assertiveness of the prosecution directly or indirectly
influenced by the executive thereby blurring our executive,
judiciary to the greater detriment of government and justice.
By abolishing the jury system we are removing a critical element in
the justice system - right of the accused to be heard as to his
fact by a more neutral or independent jury best able to grant him
justice - paving the way for the judge to listen to wishes of the
ruling party given in pre-announced policies and other politically
motivated pronouncements.
In our autocratic system, our leaders are already acting as judge
and jury so what will be the greater dangers to society? Will the
greater danger be lawlessness and disorders caused by politically
defamatory or inflamatory speeches, when the executive has
abolished jury trial of facts. In any cases of political defamation
against the opposition politicians, in the absence of any
fact-hearing panel, could we expect the trials to be fair,
equitable as to laws and facts.
Who will have influence the facts - the judge who has to worry
about his career after what has happened to past judges who got
transferred after their giving of verdict the other way.
In Singapore with the last bastion of fair hearing of fact or
defence - the judge is the only person who can be relied upon to be
fair but how fair can he be when he has to worry what will happen
to his career which is determined by the executive.
