Home 
Perspective Special Feature An open letter to Chief Justice Chan Sek Keong
Perspective Special Feature An open letter to Chief Justice Chan Sek Keong
| An open letter to Chief Justice Chan Sek Keong |
 |
 |
| Thursday, 07 January 2010 |
Chee Soon Juan Dear Chief Justice Chan Sek Keong,I refer to the keynote address you gave to the New York State Bar Association in October last year. Given that the Opening of the Legal Year is upon us again, I wish to highlight a few points in your speech that were at once telling and, frankly, rather disturbing. Defending freedom of speech, then and now You started off by recounting how you and two others (Messrs Tommy Koh and TPB Menon) had written to the Straits Times to defend a Professor Sheridan who had criticised the government for its choice of Singapore's Chief Justice. Mr Sheridan was attacked by a lawyer who argued that the professor should not comment on issues he knew nothing about. You had then, rightly, pointed out that Professor Sheridan was merely exercising his right of free speech. The year was 1958 during which you were a law student and the government was the British colonial one which had appointed another Briton, instead of a Singaporean, as CJ.  I am uncertain why you related this anecdote which you left unattended after its mention. But I could not suppress a smile, wry as it was, when I thought about how something similar happened years later when the PAP Government made the same accusation of the Law Society under its president, Mr Francis Seow.Not only did Mr Lee Kuan Yew assert that the Law Society was meddling where it was not supposed to but proceeded to amend the Legal Profession Act to outlaw the Society from commenting on legislation or its passage. This was in 1986 when you were no longer a student but a High Court Judge. I wonder if you felt then that the Law Society's right to freedom of speech should have been defended as vigorously as you defended Professor Sheridan's. Whose values? You related to your listeners how Mr Lee had explained why he had to use the Internal Security Act to detain without trial "political offenders". As a judge and Chief Justice, would you explain to Singaporeans what the term "political offender" is? What law has the offender transgressed? How long or in what way should he be punished? Does he get to defend himself in a fair trial?  I also wonder if you would have a change in opinion now that some of these detainees are coming forward to recount their ordeals while they were detained, including accounts of how they were tortured and kept in solitary confinement. Among them are Messrs Chye Thye Poh who was imprisoned for 32 years, Lim Hock Siew (20 years), Ho Piao (19 years), Said Zahari (17 years), Poh Soo Kai (17 years), Michael Fernandez (9 years), and the late Lim Chin Siong (7 years).Additionally, given the de-classification of archived material by the British Foreign Office that reveal that many of these offenders were held by Mr Lee Kuan Yew for political reasons rather than national security ones, do you hold that these detentions are right and just? Can these former detainees come before the courts now to seek redress? You then went on to reaffirm in your speech the supremacy of the rule of law, and that the "fundamental principles" of the English legal system and ours are the same. But you quickly qualified that the "public law is quite different since this body of law must reflect the political, social and cultural values of the people." You are obviously very concerned that the legal system here be adapted to fit the "political, social and cultural values" of Singapore. You mentioned the phrase no less than six times. Which begs the questions: What are our political, social, and cultural values? How did they come about? Did these values evolve through time or did Mr Lee foist them on society? In other words, are these really the "values of the people" or values of Mr Lee?  I raise these questions because in your speech you acknowledged that: "If you study the Singapore statute book today, you will find MM Lee’s precepts and values reflected in all the laws." (emphasis mine) And why is this the case? Presumably because, as you say, Mr Lee "was aware of the power of law as an instrument for political, social or economic change."If these values are indeed Mr Lee's does it not follow that the legal system and legislation have been moulded by one man to suit his own values? It must be pointed out that the MM, pre-eminent as he is in your eyes, still remains a partisan player in Singapore's politics and has a vested interest in retaining control of political power. Which brings me to a couple of rather disturbing questions: Isn't the rule of law and the legal system supposed to rise above the values of any one man? If the concept and principles of the rule of law are so malleable, then whoever controls a government could change the laws to suit his or her own values and rule with impunity. How is that useful in a civilised society? Given these questions, would you not at least entertain the possibility that Mr Lee Kuan Yew emphasizes the need to modify Singapore legal system based on politico-socio-cultural considerations because the English system ensures that the rule of law and its twin, democracy, are not undermined by any one politician or political party whereas the one in Singapore does not? I hope it is also not lost on you that under Mr Lee's rule society in Singapore is thoroughly Westernised, at least as far as the consumeristic side is concerned. Giorgio Armani and Yves Saint Laurent are famous residents on Orchard Road, in a couple of months time we will have the glitz of Las Vegas adorning our skyline, Universal Studios will descend upon Pulau Belakang Mati, and the F1 has become a mainstay in our sports calendar even though the spectators are mainly (rich) Europeans. Even our HDB estates are given goosebump-raising names like Ang Mo Kio Green, Toa Payoh Bloom, and Kim Keat Ville. The truth is that the PAP Government wants the Western highlife but is desperately working to keep at bay the democratic values that come along with it. Or is it rule by law? I fear that you have confused the term "rule of law" with "rule by law". The former refers to a system where laws apply equally to rulers and the ruled. Rule by law, in contrast, refers to a system which uses laws to suppress democratic freedoms so much so that rulers and the ruled are governed according to different standards. Which one applies to Singapore? Let's see:  First, the opposition is prohibited from conducting political events such as cycling tours whereas Mr Lee Hsien Loong and colleagues are free to hold such activities. The authorities explain that outdoor political activities are banned. In the PM's case, the activity was not conducted by his political party (it was organised by his party's community foundation) whereas the activity that was banned was organised by the Workers' Party. Singaporeans recognise the guile. Second, while the Consumers Association of Singapore (CASE) freely conducts an assembly and procession to commemorate the World Consumers Rights Day, my colleagues and I are being prosecuted for doing the same thing. The Deputy Public Prosecutor in one of the trials said that the CASE event was a "walkathon" and therefore not a problem. How does one argue with such legal brilliance? Rule of law or rule by law? More logic You also declared in your speech that "If Singapore lacks anything in public governance, it is not law or the rule of law. It is a fundamental tenet of the government that the law must be obeyed, and the government is the first to obey the laws of the state." You mean like how our ministers had illegally entered polling stations in the 1997 elections? And when pointed out, you (then the AG) said that because they were within the polling stations and not loitering outside that these ministers were, therefore, not in breach of any law? Did you not consider the Parliamentary Elections Act Section 39(4)(c) which states that “The presiding officer shall exclude all other persons except the candidates, the polling agent or agents of each candidate, the Returning Officer and persons authorised in writing by the Returning Officer, the police officers on duty and other persons officially employed at the polling station”? You then told your audience that “the judiciary...requires an independent-minded legal profession to act for individuals to enforce and protect their rights.” I couldn't agree more. The fly in the ointment, however, is that in Singapore the legal profession, as I have mentioned, is told to shut up by Legal Profession Act. Can the legal profession, embodied in the Law Society, be independent-minded if the Government curtails its right to speak? Does logic not devour your statement? To support your contention that there is the rule of law in Singapore, you give a hypothetical example of parliament passing a law that all babies born with blue eyes shall be sentenced to death and then ask, rhetorically, whether such a law is a law at all? You answered your own question thus: "The problem with this hypothetical is that it assumes two facts. First, that Parliament is mad enough to enact such a law. Second, that any judge is mad enough to enforce it." In your next sentence you, quite bizarrely, concluded: "But the very fact that we still debate this sort of question shows that the rule of law is very much alive and well in Singapore." How is the discussion of nonsensical hypotheticals an indication of the health of the rule of law in a country?  Allow me to give you a more realistic example. Some of my colleagues and I have been found guilty for taking part in an assembly without a permit (we were distributing flyers) intended to "demonstrate opposition to the actions of the Government." When the Executive says that it is illegal to oppose Government actions without a permit, is this in keeping with the principles of the rule of law? Now this would be a real debate, one that Singaporeans will get to hear when our appeal goes before the High Court. Finally, you said that "any citizen can find redress against any other, however powerfully placed..." I tried. On two occasions. Actually I wasn't seeking redress, I was just trying to defend myself against MM Lee when he sued me for defamation. But I couldn't because Mr Lee applied for and was awarded summary judgments, which meant that there would be no trials. Given the gravity of the subject I would be grateful if you could give some thought to the issues and questions I have raised in this letter, and address them in your speech at the Opening of the Legal Year on Saturday. I wish you a good 2010. Sincerely, Chee Soon Juan Mr Michael Getnick, President of the New York State Bar Association Share this article: 
Comments (10)
Joomla components by Compojoom
|
Ads
Awesome Words
“Power concedes nothing without demand. It never has and never will.”
Other languages
Act Now
| ||||
Blogs of the week
| |||||
|
|
|
Poll Results on...
Login
News feeds
His fixation with 'fixing" Dr Chee should be legendary by now.