My first part on contempt of court was quite well received but Matilah
was not too happy saying that I did not understand the meaning of
contempt of court. Let me then quote in brief and easy terms what
contempt of court is all about using a paragraph from CNA from an
article by Lianne Chia on 15 Aug 2016.
“there are three main types of conduct which constitute contempt of
court. These are disobeying court orders, such as refusing to pay a sum
of money ordered by the court, publishing material that interferes with
on-going proceedings and making allegations of bias against the judges.”
In my previous article I touched on the part about MPs writing to judges
when a case is in court that would influence the decisions of the
court. This is similar to the above para on publishing material that
interferes with on going proceedings, tiok or not? Or is writing to the
judges is not publishing material so tak pakai? Actually if the statutes
are crafted in such a way, a clever lawyer would split hair and say
writing to judges is not the same as publishing material. So the second
part, the most important point, ie, interferes with on going proceedings
are not applicable. And the judges would have to decide if the argument
make sense or the intent and purpose were not to interfere with a court
proceeding, ie influencing a judge’s decision on a case. The judges can
either use his judgement to decide on this matter or say the law is not
clear and ask Parliament to amend or rewrite the law to make it clear,
like anything written to the judges or in print would also count as long
as it interferes with the court proceeding.
Actually court proceeding and judgement can also be differentiated as
the two are not the same. But never mind, I am more interested in the
third point in the above para, ie making allegations of bias against the
judges. Read this carefully, making allegations of bias against the
judges. What about making allegations that the judges are stupid,
simpletons, naïve, unprofessional, incompetent, can be easily influence
by public opinions or social media? Would a person be charged for
contempt of court to suggest, question or insinuate that the judges are
stupid, or fools, lack the ability to be impartial and could be easily
influenced by public opinions or comments in social media? See what I am
getting at?
Would a person make comments that see the judges no up, insults the
judges, that the judges are not very clever, fickle minded,
unprofessional and would make decisions because of public opinions or
silly comments by anonymous writers or bloggers be charged for contempt
of court?
I think anyone who insinuates that our judges are stupid or naïve, or gullible should be guilty of contempt of court.
What do you think?
PS. I have full respect for our judges. They are professionally trained,
and learned men and women with many years of experience on the job, not
with fake degrees and qualifications from degree mills or from third
world countries, and are very competent and know their jobs and the law
very well. I swear that this is the truth and nothing but the truth. I
will be dumbfounded if our judges are not what I believe like the third
world countries. Please show some respect to our judges.
All Judges in the World deserve the highest respect from all law-abiding citizens, if the citizens have been well educated in ethics and morals.
ReplyDeleteIf leaders, especially political leaders are unethical and/or immoral, or show examples of being unethical and/or immoral, or even unconscionable, to the citizens. How then can anyone expect citizens to strictly follow the ethics and moral tenets or norms of society?
Therefore, how then can citizens be expected to give the highest respect to all the judges?
Moreover, there are bound to have black sheep in any profession and every walk of life. Likewise, it should not be ruled out that there are totally no black sheep in the Legal Profession. Right or wrong?
I agreed with you fully.
ReplyDeleteHowever, to err is only human.
How many times have we seen that judgment of lower court are being appealled successfully at a higher court and this only prove a point.
The other reason why the different in judgment? It could be our law are lousily drafted that there are ambiguous and can swing either way which make legal service lucrative?
Spare a thought for the less fortunate who were right but made to pay in the case of NKF and city harvest when the whistle blowers were damn right but lack access to evidence for the fact.
Were they be vindicated now things came to the light? Are they going to get back their money and reputation? Does our legal proceedings cater for these otherwise what is justice?
What do you think?
Can we say that the UK is also Contempt of Court to our judicial system by requesting Sinkieland law not to cane Canadian alleged stanchart robber? Can Sinkieland law charge UK law as Contempt of Court in our system?
ReplyDeleteOr is Sinkieland law r double standard?
We are impartial & separate!!
ReplyDeleteI pay your million dollar salaries.
We are impartial & separate!!
I repeat we are impartial & separate!!
You were my legal counsel, now you are my....
I repeat we are impartial & separate!!!
Shit Times repeat after me....we are impartial & separate!!!
Hi all, besides the Contempt of Courts, how many Perjury charges were brought up by the Prosecutors and Judges when so many accused and witnesses gave false oaths of evidence in Courts? ?
ReplyDeleteWhy go thru the process of taking the Oaths and lied without blinking an eyelid testifying falsehoods in Court? ?
Just for going thru the Procedures and Protocol? ?
In a Parliamentary Democracy, the three Branches of Government, I.e. the Judiciary, the Legislative, and the Executive are Constitutionally and Legally binded (not blinded) to be independent, separate and distinct, and impartial.
ReplyDeleteIf the Executive has, through being too powerful for too long and as a result equates its political party to the government and the country in its everyday execution of Executive Functions, directly or indirectly interfered and controlled the other two Branches of Government (Judiciary and Legislative), can they be still be considered as independent, separate and distinct, and impartial?
ReplyDeleteHi Anon 9.15
They always said that those with deeper pockets have an advantage in winning their cases especially in civil cases or unless the evidences are too over whemling that no matter how you keng, also no way out.
It's not that the Lower Courts judges are lousy that the Higher Courts overruled their judgements. In any chargeable offence, there is a "grey" area where the liars can always look for loopholes to exploit.
Thus, why they want to have what's QC liars to defend them paying ransom fees. These liars will tried to look into whatsoever chinks in the armour to further theircase I in their super tang chiak way of convincing the Judges.
Also, they might refered some past cases of such charges to convince the Judges that the Accused were punished much lightly or even let off.
Furthermore, some use their influences and standing in Society to frighten the other party when they accused them of wrong doings. Their threats of lawsuits etc that can frightened them to back them their accusations.
Unless the other party or parties is also just as influential and powerful to hear the challenge. So, even in the end when they are proven right, the Courts would not even mention about them unless they themselves brought up to clear their reputations.
This is the Way of Laws, curry or law bak laws we lived in.
This is a simple issue made to be political, readers ended up choosing side. Go to a neutral ground: u read Ghouta under bombardment. U read before Ghouta Alqueda fired artillery shelling civilians outside this city. Now u see photos of dead bodies blaming the central government attempting to take back the lost ground. U are the judge. Who is right?
ReplyDeleteGuess being a judge to Ghouta can never be right: side with assad or side with alqueda? Both in western world are no go. But the west side with alqueda. If u are really the judge, u will receive mountains of letters emails tell u how to judge who is wrong. But u are to judge by applying existing laws.
When one star said earlier mp could right to judge on existing court case, many readers would have thought otherwise. How can the judge receive letters from NON involved parties how to judge. That is different from say victims of a case write to judge for leniency of the accused. This is the case of mp who has nothing to do with the case s parties put his nose on the case to be judged by the judge.
How to be a judge if he has to read mp s comments about his case, he is going to judge? Therefore, this star was NOT right in judgement to tell public mp can write to judges about court cases.
Do away with what terms on contempt of court, use your common sense to think. Do u want a judge to tell u who is right? If u want, do u want to have powerful hands writing to judges to tell them how to decide?
But somehow, situation in reality oredi gone extreme. There are observations for people to sway issues on court cases to rich men win poor men lose, laws siding the powerful and judgement is light for foreigners, heavy on locals, or light on religious inclination etc. These factors are well accepted and readers had seen how some accused enjoy their fruits amounting millions dollars from crimes with a short stay at changi.
What the facts presented about judgements in cases are real. Voters not happy with the outcomes are prohibited to criticize the judges. Or the court can look after u for doing so. However, there is ways to refine the existing systems which is functioning. If someone knock someone down, the judgement is clear cut to punish the wrong doers. It is not the reverse so badly done. It is a matter of how much punishment is considered right for all to be happy. Hope voters will vote for a new team to refine such parts and not asking the courts to look after them. The point is to criticize the judgement and stops there, not criticize the person. Cast the votes right will help.
Mr Rocket is absolutely right to state that when the Executive is overly Powerful, they can always enacted laws to their advantage.
ReplyDeleteAnon 10.24 Said clearly that Daft daft daft Sinkies must wake up to the fact that they themselves must action to protect themselves.
You must cast your Votes wisely to have a credible Opposition to ward off any untoward biased laws to bound you.
These are your basic rights.
Many here can actually be call up for such charges but they are kind not to pursue or take it seriously.
ReplyDeleteAlways PLP like me,say only the good thing,avoid criticizing the authority ,judges or not and you will be safe.
Sometimes me talk about hugging charbor or meimeis oso got to worry charbor association coming after me.
I am more worry and concern about my laochek here.
Vote, vote, vote!
ReplyDeleteEvery Erection is shame.
Vot, vote and vote!
Every Election is the same.
ReplyDeleteDaft Sinkies must kick their own Butts for having the Pay And Pay screwed their butts.
Having them full control to enact whatsoever laws that they want to strangle you without a whimper.
Your CPF's savings NOT your MONIES. Cheong Kong like Por Lum Pars Ahgongkia said.
GRC constituencies that benefited to their advantage. Silence the Opposition. Sending parrots of their own to Parliament.
Appointed their cronies to posts that they are even qualified for causing monetary loss and sufferings to the citizens.
Aiyo, too long to list. THAT'S WHY Kenneth said DONT KPKB, kick your own Arses. Ahgongkia said no fighting spirit.With Dafts like Ahgongkia, fighting spirits also became dispirited.
Dig your graves further in GE2020.
Adoi Laochek
ReplyDeleteMust liaokai lah.
You got sin money to throw at genting cos of your past plp contribution,but me,a miserable pathetic nearly pokkai cannot afford to offend the you know who.So can't join You all, the so call patriotic Lao heroes.
If things doesn't work out to what you want,it's you PGs fault.
Who gave them a chance to squeeze me till dry dry like a squeeze sugarcane today?
It's PG like you in those days .I dun blame anyone.PGs never teach their children well.Brain only think of money.
You gave them the chance.
Your finger oso stain with blood .
Maikaykay blame whom you support in the past.Just becos 300 not enough seebo?:-) :-)
Fuck, fuck, fuck!
ReplyDeleteEvery hole is shame.
Fuck, fuck, fuck!
Every orgasm is the same.
Complain, complain, complain!
ReplyDeleteWhen voting come, you vote in shame!
Complain, complain, complain!
Election results are the same.
Support only one or two two terms when GKS and Old Guards are for the People. Not now these self greedy lots.
ReplyDeleteNot you Dafts till now still afraid of change.
OUR MONIES you think they and Heaven throw to us??
Still afraid of your enslaving Masters. That's why you have to slot till your last breath.
Me having fresh air and enjoyed the Hospitality of the Mats in Matland.
Awaiting the day you wallowed in Shits.
10:54am
ReplyDeleteThe transparency is deteriorating. In corruption perception index, 2014 was numbered 5th, 2016 was numbered 7th.
It is a small place and only one system ie one court, one garment, no provinces. The handling is not getting better in transparency from international ranking. By earning the top of world salaries, elites did not perform well. The rank should be #1 to attract investors from the west.
What do u think?
I think, some people say if you pay peanuts you get monkeys. That is correct.
ReplyDeleteBut if you pay them world highest salaries, you get blood-sucking vampires! Never ever to quench their thirst for blood!
And they become totally ya-ya and high almighty. They rule and ruin your life totally.
And no one whatsoever can shake them.
No one can move them.
No one can challenge them.
No one can change them.
No one can replace them!
So, your life is totally fucked forever!
RB,
ReplyDeleteWriting to judge when case is on-going not contempt of court.
In fact, many 3rd party letters of character reference are also written to judges during on-going cases. Just that these are presented to judges thru the defense lawyers. MP letters are sent & screened by various court admin depts. before routed to judge PAs.
Discussion of ongoing cases using recorded medium will be seen as crossing the line, if you start discussing about projected outcomes, guilty or not guilty, what law should be used to charge, penalties that should be handed out, what the judge should do, judges performance, etc.
Hence 1 should be careful when emailing or whatsapping stuff like that to your friends/family. The original message is intended as "private" but subsequent recipients can sabo you by re-re-sending or mass-sending to general population.
So coffeeshop verbal talk is usually safe, unless you or someone do video/voice recording & upload to YouTube or iTunes.
Everyone surname should be courts and there will be many ''contempt of courts''. If de court is not independent, just and fair, how not to be contempt unless we live in totalitarian system.
ReplyDeleteWriting to judges and presented in courts by the lawyers is different from writing to judges without presenting the material in court. It is like whispering to the judges or going through the back door.
ReplyDeleteCharacter references or whatever info presented in court are produced as material of a case in a way to influence the judge's decision, like lawyers presenting their case. These are part of the procedures of law.
Trying to influence the judge's decision without going through the court process is the issue. Material presented in court is subject to cross examination. Back door material, only one side knows and the judge knows. But as layman, we may not be in a position to say what is contempt and what is not contempt.
Ask Shanmugam. He knows.
Just like the chinese saying of 官字两个口 (Officials got 2 mouth, hard to win). Sham is ahneh, he knows that too.
ReplyDeleteIf u are politician, will you write to the judge on an on going case?
ReplyDeleteThe contempt court bill states in plain languages on kwang wang official web site. U your blain lah politician.
"The Bill states that as soon as a writ is filed for civil proceedings or when a suspect has been charged with a criminal offence, individuals cannot comment on the case — relating to guilt or facts that have not been established by a court — or it would constitute sub judice, which falls under contempt of court. The curb is lifted only when the court proceedings have concluded, such as after an appeal has been heard and decided.
Mr Shanmugam noted that the proposed law does not constrain the right to criticise a judgment or law. What it does is to make it clear that an individual cannot say, without basis, that a judge is biased or motivated by personal considerations because there is a “need to maintain the integrity of the judiciary and protect (them from this) sort of allegations,” he added."
Even china also contempt of international courts, right? Who is the one who said the court is always right? Must be stupid, right?
ReplyDeleteSo saying someone chaw low on sampan is not 100% safe. Saying someone chaw low guilty of avoiding something is amounting contempt liao. Cannot say guilty or not. Ordinary individual should say chaow low, dont say sampan, this is safest. Mention chaw low and sampan is not desirable liao. Say no more about chaw low case at coffee shop.
ReplyDelete4:26pm
ReplyDeleteU cannot say chaw low. It is contempt of court for prejudice against someone. U should say fishing trip on sampan. This is to avoid any unintentional contempt when talking in coffee shop.
It was fishing trip got intercepted, to be fairly describing it.
ReplyDeleteFrankly, tell this Mr Shame No need to praise the Coast Guards lah. Without the tip off, you think they can catch that Mr Chew.???
How about Mas Selamat?? He claimed swam over also cannot catch.
Furthermore, you just see for yourself the Route taken by the sampan. After Pulai Ubin's Jetty, why they kept to the centre of the sea so oblivious so the Coastguards to nab.??
Johore is right on Top of Pulai Ubin and if they want to go north, they must kept to the shore of Ubin and then headed North straight up take a chance speed up. By taking a lone detour in the centre of Straits of Singapore, how to outmaneuver the Coast Guards power boats???
Also, want to escape, at NIGHT lah, under the Cover of Darkness. Better chance.
How Lian, we already on the Table to amend the Laws of Bails!!
Really ah???
5:22pm
ReplyDeleteThis man was on fishing trip only. That s why his direction sailed south towards main island and he did it on day light. All this telling signs pointed towards a leisure trip. Not to forget he was a journalist with the national press, an obvious elites supporter, should follow the laws by the inches. Even big guns implied he tried to escape. Which court rules that he tried to escape?
Hi Anon 5.22
ReplyDeleteCorrect lah! Maybe three and a half year to serve longer than National Slavery so miss his fishing trips.
For old time sake one more time go fishing. This Kelong Boss Mr Tan, well known in his community.Take this that of risks meh??
Some more think he no shark head long for quick bucks.
IF really want to chow lor, engage a professional shark head.
This owner part time kayak canoeing for extra incomes.Where got guts for this business? ?
Sane people common sense also understand.
Well put it this way. The reemployment of judges is determined by the pmo. In other words they can either give you the golden boot or the golden ricebowl. Therefore i cannot have any respect for them just by default. Same for the cpib
ReplyDeleteRespect is earned, not by force through legislation.
ReplyDeleteOne in power, even an Emperor, may passed a law, or by decree, to prosecute and persecute someone for contempt of court, within whatever parameters determined by you, legal or otherwise. However, one cannot force anybody to give respect to the judges or emperors. Why?
Because respect is a sincere feeling of reference and reverence from the heart, not a mental calculation or mental determination.
Done by force, citizens may pretend to show respect outwardly, for fear of being punished, but inwardly, in their hearts, they may still harbour total discontent, unhappiness, feeling of injustice, disrespect and utter contempt!
So, if one has to legislate in order to gain respect, then one might have already shown, to the public, the failure, weakness and flaw in the Legal System as a whole, and the Judiciary in particular.
Think about it from the wider and long-term perspective.
If a judge is to take MP letter into consideration, he/she will need to declare & display in court. Cannot just read quietly in his/her office & keep quiet. Ongoing case files & correspondence are recorded & tracked by the courts. Judges are not dumb enough to play punk & risk fat juicy career when audited.
ReplyDeleteThese letters are usually just talk cock character reference types ... nothing substantial of evidence. No need for any cross-examination by either defense or prosecution. Anyway judges in S'pore court are sole arbiters of law during cases ... there is no jury system. And judges here will decide base on their interpretation & understanding of the relevant facts, not wishy washy feel good statements or how many 10,000 hours of volunteerism/charity by the accused etc etc.
If any letter got reveal some big secret hidden evidence, the judge is at liberty to dismiss such unorthodox info with reasons, or to call for adjournment in chambers with both defense & prosecution. The system here doesn't take kindly to unorthodox methods & judges will fark the party that does it.
Million dollar compensation is called "mercenary" business lah.
ReplyDeletePublic service is sacrificial compensation calling lah.
Unless you have perverse PAPPies mind that highest politician pay in the world, and proudly yet shamelessly broadcast and called it sacrificial public service. Hahaha. Chio See Lang.....no education & no moral upbringing mindset despite high academic achievements.
My vote: get lost, go and shaft it.
A country run by mercenaries, disguised as self-sacrificial lambs, is as bad as, if not worse than, a country run by politicians who are corrupted to the core but tried to cover up.
ReplyDeleteLegalised corruption is the worst form of corruption because no aggrieved party is able to seek redress or remedy in any court of law.
A people who allowed legalized corruption to go on and on is a people with no moral courage and ethical consciousness. They are as good as zombies existing in dead carcasses. Their bodies are rotting, stinking and ugly, yet their evilness in spirit continues to wreck havoc upon the living and surviving.
This is pathetic and tragic! Something that shouldn't and need not happen but happened!
Agongkia, u keep blaming the PG generation and as Virgo explained then the pap is different. How to wake u up to your senses other than to sodomize you?
ReplyDeleteAgongkia, whenever he forgot to take his medicine, he becomes kongcum and idiotic, and started the blame game, even cursing his own father and mother without realising it. Rightly, like Ravi, he should be forced to stay in IMH and be denied access to the Internet like Amos.
ReplyDeleteThe courts don't take kindly to ad hominem attacks aimed at the judiciary.
ReplyDeleteHowever there are ways to point out errors without belittleing the target.
If you conduct yourself in a courteous and respecful manner, they can never level a charge of CONTEMPT at you.
Let's face it, I can be the foul-mouthed miscreant as many of the readers know...however I understand enough about human nature to know that being polite and respectful, as well as abiding by the law is necessary if you really want to be 'proactive' in actually solving a problem, or settling an issue.
You might not get your objective, and sometimes that's ok. But at least no one can say you're hostile, uncooperative and worst still...being a "scofflaw".
"Would a person make comments that see the judges no up, insults the judges, that the judges are not very clever, fickle minded, unprofessional and would make decisions because of public opinions or silly comments by anonymous writers or bloggers be charged for contempt of court?"
ReplyDeleteDid anyone say this?
@Rocket & Virgo
ReplyDeleteYou believe too much in the separation of powers in The State. Remember, that is a separation decided by hypothesis: the hypothesis being "If we break up The State into 3 separate branches, that is a safer bet and prevent tyranny"
The idea stems from when there was a single-person, all-powerful MONARCHY. One leader who decides everything and whose word cannot be challenged, without the bad consequence of incarceration, banishment, torture or execution. They call it sedition or Lèse-majesté.
The separation of powers is mostly BULLSHIT. And there is no "conflict" between the powers unless there are issues at stake. i.e. if there is no issue, they are all buddy-buddy.
In Singapore, the executive, legislature and the judiciary all get on fine with one another.
So you can take your "separation of powers" and throw it from the highest window in parliament house, into the Singapore Rive lah. At least the drunken beer-guzzlers on the opposite bank (Boat Quay) will laugh heartily and YAM SENG you for getting rid of yet another piece of bullshit belief in politics.