Me. Myself & i

I've got so many things to talk about, wonder if i have the time, or the patience to write about all of them: My latest public law reading: Independence of Judiciary in Singapore; The Danish Cartoon outrage; and on a more personal level, the attack on the reason why i support liverpool. All very sensitive issues, on many different levels, national, inter-national, and personal. But don't expect too much from this post, because i'm in a rush for time (Going back to my very exciting, illuminating, yet depressing public law readings). :p

Independence of Judiciary in Singapore
Many who have attempted to smear the independence of judiciary have been taken to court for contempt and i have full awareness that by writing about this, i am threading on thin ice. Hence, i shall write my disclaimer once again, and change the style of writing today, which i doubt will be of much help.
---------------------------------------------------
Disclaimer: Even after all my public readings, i am a supporter of a competent government, which we obviously have today. Being an advocate for my political awareness does not make me anti-PAP. Readers will draw their own conclusions from what i'm about to write, and i will do my utmost to include the citations, just in case i am sue for making these things up.
---------------------------------------------------
Judiciary is the third arm of the government, separated from the executive and legislative, in order to provide adequate check and balances within the government. To uphold the Rule of Law - a law that ought to be regular and upholds equality (diceyian concept).
In Singapore, the judiciary has two responsibilities: 1)A review of unconstitutionality of laws / acts of executives and 2) A guardian of fundamental rights of individuals, Part IV of the Constitution . These two duties necessarily mean that judiciary is a check on the executive, limiting their 'untrammelled power'. With such a great and difficult duty to discharge, especially since it is against the executive, one would expect the appointment of judges to steer away from the influence of the Executive. However, the fact of the matter is that:
Art 95(1)of the constitution- the CJ, the Judges of Appeal and Judges of the High Court shall be appointed by the President if he, acting in his discretion, concurs with the advice of the Prime Minister.
This same article is applicable to the appointment of High Court judge, Court of Appeal Judge and Judicial commissioner.
The PM shall consult CJ, other than for the appointment of CJ under clause 1.
No doubt, the presence of the Elected President and CJ can outweigh the inclusion of the head of the Executive. However, "these other participants in the appointment process have a potentially small part in the final say as to who should be appointed to the Judiciary." (Michael Hor, "The Independence of the Criminal Justice System in SIngapore", SJLS [2002] 497-513)

Appointment aside, Tenure of the judges will guarantee them their job even if they rule against the incumbent government. Art 98 provides for the Tenure of office of Judges of Supreme Court (higher court)
(1)- Judges of SC shall hold office until he attains the age of 65
judges past the age of 65 'tend to be hired as contract judges for a certain number of years' (Thio Li-Ann, "Lex Rex or Rex Lex", (Pacific Basin Law Journal)20, 2002, Pg 21) These contracts are not extended automatically. According to Francis Seow, "the contracts are renewable at the will of the Prime Minister, is not conducive to judicial independence" ("The Singapore Puzzle, at 116). (I cannot find the profile, age of the high court judges of today, due to my incompetence. All i could find is list of pictures and names of these judges.)
Hence, There is no conclusive evidence that the high court today is filled with contracted judges passed their retirement age, which can influence their decisions on government related cases.
But it is undeniable that such a practice raises suspicion where the succession rate of administrative actions against the government is low, thou not unknown of (Re Fong Tin Choo, [1992] 1 SLR 120). Even though Such low rates, on itself is, again, not conclusive that judiciary independence is lacking. It does not necessarily draw the link, because it may be because there is high prosecutorial efficiency, in bringing only the guilty to the court (Michael Hor). Thus the judges, who are impartial have little choice but to convict, or to rule in the government's favour.

To judge on these different factors independently of the others, it seems that we have a very good system of independent judiciary to protect the individuals, and safeguard the democratic system. However, it is noteworthy that conclusion should not be drawn studying on the factors alone. All of them constitute a bigger picture. Appointment largely influenced by the head of executive; provisions of tenure allows discretion of the executive. There is an inevitable pattern. The judiciary system in Singapore thread in the grey area of neither wholly independent nor dependent. On the face value, there are beautiful safeguards to prevent too much interference by the executive. But during enforcement, what is actually happening when these provisions are executed?
One e.g. to illustrate this:
The president, CJ will balance the weightage of PM's say in the appointment of Supreme Court judges on the face value of the provisions.
Elected Presidency Institution is itself a young institution, yet to developed into a strong veto power it supposedly should possess.
CJ, is appointed by the President, but again, with the advice of the PM.

All these evidence seems to be reinforcing a point, that there is executive influence in every turn of the checks, meant to be exercised on the Executive.

I am not advocating to abolish all these provisions, i.e. that judges retire at the age of 65 regardless of whether there is any competent successor. As a Singaporean, i do not wish to have chaos. Neither do i want to see an over powering judiciary which checks on every trivial matter involving the Executive. That is an extreme I don't wish to see either.
All will be fine with the present system, as long as we are able to trust and have competent people in the executive. But just as PAP said that multi-racial peace in Singapore cannot be ensured in the future, we cannot be sure that the incumbent party will always have and be filled with honourable men.

The post is meant to be as neutral i can ever be on politics. But like what Prof Thio mentioned in class "how can one talks about politics without being political?"

Sorry, think i spent too much time on this that my other two posts will be postponed to some other time...

Cheers!