Comments, opinions and an occasional ramble
Executive interference with the judiciary
Molly Meek expressed her opinions on subject of executive interference with the judicial branch of government. In the typical “bimbotic” Molly Meek fashion (she’s pretending to be bimbotic when she clearly isn’t), she explained her support for NCMP Sylvia Lim’s concern that a proposed amendment to the Constitution allowing the Prime Minister to nominate up to two members of the legal service commision could possibly be a regressive step with regards to judicial independence.
Possible executive influence (for those who are unclear about what the term executive means in the context of this entry, it refers to the Cabinet) over the judiciary is always a concern for any democracy. One of the main characteristics of a democracy that differentiates it from other systems of governance is the separation of power in such a way that no one group of people have total control. Unfortunately, while the idea is good in theory, in practice, there are often difficulties in implementation.
Let’s take the United States for example. Few would disagree that the U.S. is one of the least dysfunctional democracy in the world. Yet, when it comes to appointing Supreme Court judges, it is the leader of the executive arm, the President, who nominates the Supreme Court judge (although the Senate would have to confirm the appointment). So, in trying to amend the constitution to allow the head of the executive branch of our government (i.e. the Prime Minister) to nominate members to the legal service commission isn’t something out of the norm.
The real problem is that Singapore’s parliament is so heavily dominated by the PAP that there is no way to block the nominations at all. In the case of the U.S., the relatively even split in Senate and Congress between Republicans and Democrats ensure that there is no “rubber stamping”. Something can certainly be done by the Senate to block nomination of a Supreme Court judge given that the power of the legislative arm is quite evenly shared.
To cut the long story short, there is no way to ensure that the judiciary is completely independent of influence of the other arms of government. However, steps can be taken to reduce direct influence. In the case of the U.S., once a Supreme Court judge is appointed, the appointment is for life. Naturally, there are problems with such an approach as well but it is perhaps the lesser of evils compared to alternatives. Therefore, the issue of changing the Constitution to allow the Prime Minister to nominate two people to the legal service commission is not exactly that of executive interference with the judiciary. Rather, it is the lack of scrutiny by the third arm of government (the legislature, i.e. Parliament) owing to the overwhelming dominance of the PAP in Parliament.
| Print article | This entry was posted by Aaron Ng on 19/07/2007 at 12:02 pm, and is filed under Perspective. Follow any responses to this post through RSS 2.0. You can leave a response or trackback from your own site. |
about 4 years ago
A case study could be the judiciary of England. There is no clear separation of powers yet the judiciary has often shown itself to be independent from the legislature and monarchy.
about 4 years ago
‘U.S. is one of the least dysfunctional democracy in the world.’
you kidding?
about 4 years ago
I’m not kidding. There are other democracies that might be better, but I do not know enough of their political system to comment, so I pick one I know about and isn’t that dysfunctional.
about 4 years ago
Aaron,
Here we go again. We have seen this much-repeated pattern of the PAP getting what it wants , no matter how much Opposition leaders speak out against it. Bloggers demolish the PAP’s arguments for the proposed changes, but nothing changes.
The people of Singapore either forget about the whole thing, or do not even care, given how politically apathetic they are.
I feel so frustrated. What the blogosphere can do is simply not enough, and neither is the tiny Opposition voice in Parliament.
Happy National Day, everyone.
about 4 years ago
Michaelk,
The current situation is a result of many many years of indoctrination and social engineering. Thus for change to occur there needs be time, in fact i guess when i am white haired and aaron is a grand dad the PAP could very well still be in power. I understand where u are coming from, in fact at times i do feel impatient and irritated and the regression or lack of progress, but as Rome was not built in a day change cannot come overnight. And for there to be change, every component must do its part.
about 4 years ago
Thanks, Ned.
Sometimes I wonder how they can bear engage in “indoctrination and social engineering” on such a large scale, especially when the were the opposition once, decades ago. What goes through their minds? Perhaps they really believe that what they are doing is good, but we will never know, will we? Time to think about this.
Anyway, it’s getting pretty obvious when the MSM reports pro-establishment news these days. They start off by using a minister’s quote in headline or some subjective phrase, then subtlety make a biased report- in this case, they said that the people who rebutted Ms Lim were lawyers (RTA) but did not mention that Ms Lim was a lawyer. Molly Meek mentioned this bias in her blog, and I would like to add on that I feel that this kind of “journalism”, especially in the MSM, is an insult to the people.
Give us objective news. We can make up our own minds.
Oh wait, we hardly engage in critical thinking and discussion about politics. Never mind.
about 4 years ago
Oh come on aaron, why are you helping to spread conspiracy theories?! Our PM Lee and his cabinet are well paid for their integrity, neutrality and objectivity, they will never use their power to nominate someone they favor or is simply pro-PAP. Just look at our elections dept under the PM Office, everyone knows they are neutral and independent …that is why our elections are so fair. Look at the neutral person they endorsed for President who is now busy check our reserves to make sure it is well guarded.
Don’t worry about separation of powers – its an outdated idea. The Singapore govt is far more advanced than that…to get the right behavior we just PAY MORE. We don’t have to worry about the people in power, they are well paid. It is poorly paid NMPs that create conspiracy theories that we need to look out for. They are the ones beholden to the ideals of Western democracy something we don’t need in Singapore Inc.
about 4 years ago
Critical thinking and discussions in politics? Aww c’mon. That is a joke in Singapore.
And again… the govrmt wonders why the p65ers are apathetic towards politics, and why we will leave Singapore at any remote chance we have. They have labeled such as quitters, unfilial sons of Singapore.
Well, the truth hurts for both them and me.
I may be a ’2nd-class’ citizen in another country. But I have choices. Do I have that privilege back in SG?
Choices for my personal space, my family, my career, my hobbies, my time, my daughter if she does not do well academically, my decision to buy or rent a house, the kind of medical insurance I wish to have and not a rule for all, the kind of car I want or can afford, etc.
Back then, I never had choices.
Anyway, looking at the way how SG policies are implementated, aren’t we the citizens being degraded like 2nd class citizens? Are there any differences now?
At least I know in this country the PM can’t pay himself more than 100k per month. And I can safely voice my displeasure and it will be taken up to him. Can I back there in SG? My MPs dance to the tune of what is played and dare not voice out the obvious.
Have you seen a PM fuming mad until his face turns red and he starts to raise his voice because he could not answer the opposition? He totally lost control of himself. Just see the recent debate between John Howard and Kevin Rudd. No holds barred. Now that’s politics.
I also know why PM Lee said he needs to spend a lot of time to ‘fix’ the opposition should their numbers increase.
So I’d rather move on, start afresh and not deal with the conspiracy theories, frustration that my voice is not heard and the lack of choices in my life and the pathetic forms of debate in the Parliament. You know, all wayang-wayang.
Alfian Sa’at puts it best: “If you care too much about Singapore, first it’ll break your spirit, and finally it will break your heart.”
Cheers from DownUnder,
Kaffein
about 4 years ago
Kaffein,
You should read you Straits Times more often and watch more MediaCorp programmes….after 1 or 2 months I guarantee you will appreciate living in Singapore and the grand achievements of the PAP govt. You will begin to appreciate the superiority of our system over mediocre ones…
about 4 years ago
Michaelk,
Ah that happens a lot of times. Kinda like what Cassius said in Julius Caesar, something about scorning the base rungs from which they ascended or something to that effect. It is a common trend in history that the persecuted become the persecutor. The history of Christianity is one such example; one moment they were fed to the lions, the next moment they were excommunicating people and burning people at the stake. And now u see some of their prejudices in the ST forum online.
about 4 years ago
Hi Aaron I’m glad you pointed out that the U.S. govt needs the Senate’s approval for an appointment of a Supreme Court Judge. This undeniably leads to closer scrutiny on the background, character and history of the appointed judge. Infact, there is still a possibility that such a nomination can be revoked or blocked.
The issue in Singapore is that we have no such system. Once the PM decides to appoint, it is almost a guarantee that the decision is final and will pass through. In addition to your point that parliament is dominated by a single-party, a more pertinent issue is that our legal system does not employ the use of a jury. Thus, it becomes even more important for us to ensure that our judges are impartial and independent from any political bias and influence.
In many democracies, there are constitutions and a system of check and balances from multi political parties to ensure the absence of abuse of political power. In Singapore, a dominant party in the government has the power to subtly influence many areas – and even without the PM’s power to nominate, I have a feeling that many in the legal system are indirectly pressurized to make certain decisions that are in favour of the government. There are already indicators – like the winning of every libel and defamation suit by the government.
about 4 years ago
First of all, why is there a need for the PM to nominate two
charlies to be inside the top decision-making body of the Judiciary?
If they are not going there to “spy”, “monitor”, “oversee” and
influence the decision-making, then what are they there for?
Has anybody told us why, in the first place, there must be two
additional chaps, intentionally nominated or appointed by the PM,
to “infiltrate” into that highest decision-making body? Why?
Why? Why? Why?
about 4 years ago
Wywywy,
I have the answer for you as the gov want to reply to you !
The answer for YOU is :
NO REPLY !
That’s the answer, and move on. Gov will tell you this anyway.