6/05/2008
When no one wins
ldzmyiiqThis is my observation on the civil suit against Chee Soon Juan recently. The Chee siblings lost, simple as that, and had to spend a few days behind bars. Did the plaintiffs win? They only won the judgement of the court. Otherwise they lost in all counts in the court of public opinions.
The big loser is the Judge if what was heard in the gossip corners and cyberspace were to go by. Oh there is a bigger loser, make your guess.
There is a common saying that one can win a battle and lose a war. This is an unnecessary skirmish that should not have happened. Not worth a minute to be spent on it. But people can have different opinions and think it is important and the show must go on.
This is at best a hollow victory with an immeasurable price.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
9 comments:
Reputation won is judicial integrity lost. Worth the effort?
The point is nowadays plenty of information came out of cyberspace unlike the old days when only the MSM dispense what they want you to hear and to know. That's the reality on the ground. Let the emperor enjoy his new clothes.
I say redbean, you are being ever so cautious with your words in your post. Who can blame you?
There's a sicko tyrant out there who is hell bent on "knuckle-dusting" anyone in cyberspace who dares to offend him.
It is intersting how newbie minister Shanmu*** came out to say that the judiciary must be defended, because it is the rule of law which ensures that the institution of democracy is functioning properly.
I do agree, but in order to be WORTHY of upholding the rule of law, the judiciary needs to be SCRUTINIZED from inside and out, by The People to ensure that this branch of The State is functioning correctly.
The problem in S'pore (as I have said time and again) is that the judiciary IS NOT scrutinised by the people.
Everyone is EQUAL under the law, and are subject to it. That includes ALL of the judges, magistrates, AG, public prosecutors etc. They must abide BY THE LAW themselves (i.e. uphold the constitution, uphold due process, strike down bad laws) or they themselves act
agaisnt the national interest.
The judiciary must remain politically neutral, and unless it is, it is CORRUPTED.
matilah,
you should not doubt our judiciary system. all our eminent legal professionals has no quarrel with it and will vouch that it is the best or one of the best in the world.
if you doubt our system, you are doubting everyone of them. we don't have a mahathir to appoint his kakis to the judiciary. please, have faith.
When you say we are the best in the world, I believe you. When you say we are ranked lowly in terms of human rights in the world I don't believe you. That's the new reality!
You know redbean, occasionally it is good to remind you that I am a person who is quite capable of making my own judgments.
I disagree with you on many matters, and this is one of them. I find your ability to reason somewhat flawed, and this is a great example: just because you get a cock stand when you obediently bow to the opinions of "eminent legal professionals" doesn't mean that I have to give "them" a moment of thought. I make up my mind independent of what the fuck other people think or say. And a further reminder: I don't come from the "let's all be agreeable" arse-kissing, facade-of-sincerity-but-FuckYou-behind -your-back camp.
The Singapore judicial system does excellent work in protecting property rights, and upholding contract law. It does fantastic work in convicting and punishing violent criminals.
HOWEVER it is politicised -- meaning that the judiciary can be, and IS used for political gain. This is the FIRST THING that needs to be addressed.
The SECOND is this: that the judiciary be subject to scrutiny from within and from the outside -- the layperson. Since EVERYONE is equal under the law, justice must be BLIND and kept BLIND, bowing to no other outside code or influence -- whether from powerful individuals or groups.
You'll notice that if S'pore had the 2nd, the 1st probably wouldn't happen. i.e. that if the judiciary was subject to scrutiny and critique from every angle it wouldn't be politicised. That doesn't mean the judiciary has to BEND to the will of the people. Absolutely not. Justice is BLIND, and not determined by popular vote. The system therefore needs to be TRANSPARENT.
If the judiciary was transparent, its relationships with the other powers of The State will be transparent as well. For democracy to work, and for the rule of law to be impartial (justice is blind), there MUST be separation of State powers -- i.e. The Executive, The Legislature and The Judiciary need to be separate, kept separate by RULE OF LAW. And the only way to do this is by having total transparency.
So folks, there is work to be done. Will it be done? I must say I'm not at all confident in judicial scrutiny or reform of the powers of the state to allow total transparency.
But then again, I don't give a shit what happens to S'pore, because it is totally beyond my control. In the meantime I shall continue to enjoy S'pore as my favourite hotel.
Two Charlies trying to defend their reputation at the expense of the Reputation of the Judiciary. Where is the wisdom of the so-called wise old man? Gone down the drain.
Somebody must still be having wet dreams about reputation. It is already down the gutter!
matilah,
sometimes i think you are quite smart. but every now and then you give me doubts : )
i am good, i am damn good.
if i have to scream that i am good. if i have to fight with people to say i am good, then it is gone case.
this applies to reputation as well. it may be gone without one knowing.
Post a Comment