The following letter by the press secretary to the Minister for Law was published in the Wall Street Journal on 23 July.

Your editorial “Judging Singapore’s Judiciary” (July 15) perpetuates the baseless allegations and errors of fact in the Report of the International Bar Association’s Human Rights Institute.

The IBA Human Rights Institute’s criticism of Singapore‘s judiciary is contradicted by the International Bar Association itself. Last year, IBA President Fernando Pombo said publicly that Singapore “has an outstanding legal profession, an outstanding judiciary, an outstanding academical world in relation to the law.” You have suppressed this, and instead attributed the IBA Human Rights Institute’s criticisms to the IBA, when the IBA President had stated the very opposite!

You also repeat the vague allegations in the Institute’s Report that defamation suits involving the ruling party lack “impartiality and/or independence.” The decisions of the Courts in these cases are matters of public record, and anyone questioning the verdicts can analyze and examine the decisions properly. Yet the Report contains nothing to back these claims.

Singapore ministers and government officials are held to the highest standards of probity and integrity. This has been recognized by international agencies like the Property and Environment Research Center and Transparency International. That is why investors put in billions of dollars into Singapore, and why Singapore is an oasis of prosperity and stability in Southeast Asia with one of the highest per-capita incomes in the world. Thus when scurrilous allegations of corruption are made, ministers and officials defamed will sue to clear their name. We see no virtue in becoming a society where anyone can freely publish untruths without having to back them up in court.

Further, contrary to the Report, all Supreme Court judges in Singapore enjoy “security of tenure” until retirement at 65. There is also no need to “put an end to the transfer of judges between executive and judicial roles” because Supreme Court judges cannot be transferred and there has never been such a transfer.

Western newspapers, NGOs and human rights groups like the IBA’s Human Rights Institute prescribe Western norms as the way for other countries to “join the ranks of modern democracies.” But not every Western norm is suitable to all countries in the world. Singapore cannot allow those who carry no responsibility for Singapore‘s future to dictate its political and legal systems. Singaporeans know that they have a noncorrupt government and an independent judiciary. They live in one of the top five most transparent countries in the world, with the freedom to express their views, oppose the government and take part in free and fair elections. Singaporeans will choose for themselves the shape and norms for their society.

S. Radha
Press Secretary to the Minister for Law
Singapore

————–

Subscribe
Notify of
0 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
You May Also Like

Effigy burning – would Gilbert Goh be breaking the law?

By Andrew Loh In a TODAY report in August of 2008 on…

LKY’s account shows Singapore supported Khmer Rouge initially before dumping them

It was reported on TOC that Ministry if Foreign Affairs’ press release…

周崇庆为电子支付广告争议公开致歉

近日,电子支付平台Epay因为争议性广告引起坊间注意和挞伐,该广告请艺人周崇庆饰演4种不同角色,包括印度人和穆斯林妇女,被批欠缺族群敏感度,对此星网电子支付公司NETS 也为该广告公开致歉。 在昨日(7日),周崇庆本人也在个人社交媒体Instagram上,为自己所扮演的角色公开致歉。 他于帖文中表示,“我在广告当中所扮演的角色已令许多民众感到失望。这些天未能发表我的想法,是担心事情会愈演愈烈。如今演变成这样我亦感到难受。” 周崇庆续指,尽管事情已无法回头,但他仍然想向大家表示万分抱歉。 帖文最后,他表示,“我们生活在一个和谐地多元种族社会当中,所以我们不应将所有事情视为理所应当。未来会设下更高的标准监督自己,为自己的家人、朋友、同事,以及最重要的大家,成为更好的人。” 日前,周崇庆在电子支付广告中一人饰演四角,包括印度人和穆斯林妇女,随后引发众人议论,被批欠缺敏感度,也接收到各界的批评,其中就有杂志编辑在推特炮轰:“2019年,新加坡广告还有“啡色脸”,我以为我们已经过了那个阶段。” 后来更有网红“美丽求求你”与其兄拍片讽刺,但视频公开后,矛头转向网红,认为内容因涉及侮辱性语言与姿势,引来民众谩骂及警方的调查,要求撤下,内政兼律政部长尚穆根更出面斥责网红行径“已过界”,试图挑拨种族纷争,迫使网红兄妹二度道歉。 星网电子支付公司NETS与前创意公司及新传媒也出面公开表示,“广告以提倡电子支付为主,仅向公众表达“每个人都能使用电子付款”的用意,却造成伤害,感到十分抱歉。” View this post…

Election surprises and certainties: Dissecting Tharman’s presidential win

In the 2023 Presidential Election, Mr. Tharman Shanmugaratnam secured a stunning 70.4% landslide victory, surprising many, including himself. Despite expectations that TKL would win the opposition votes, voters from both camps showed a preference for Tharman’s charisma and perceived competency. As Singapore reflects on the outcome, questions arise about the election’s fairness and the real implications of Tharman’s dominant win.