~by Alex Au ~

The Attorney-General’s Chambers issued a press release yesterday (17 July 2012) in response to my post Using power to give immunity to the powerful which was published on 15 July.

The press release opens with a re-assertion of one of the two usual justifications for the law on scandalising the judiciary. It said: “Accusations of bias diminish it in the eyes of the citizen, lower it and ultimately damage the nation. Such accusations can occur frequently, with the judges not being able to respond. That is why confidence in the administration of justice needs to be protected from such allegations.”

I had dealt with this so-called justification right at the top of my earlier post as well as in its final quarter. Firstly, there is no reason why judges should not be able to respond, and secondly how does one distinguish between allegations and truth unless the initial assertions are allowed to be discussed further and aired?

Sometimes, allegations eventually turn out to be true. To prohibit all allegations is to choke off any further discovery.

A more substantive point from the AGC was this:


A judge can be criticised, even fiercely criticised for getting the law or facts wrong, for getting the decision wrong or for imposing the wrong sentence. This is regularly done by lawyers, academics and lay persons. Such criticism is not contempt. There is no curtailment of free speech that would prevent such criticism. It is contempt however to say that the court was biased if there is no objective rational basis to do so, as Alex Au did.

Where the parties to a case do feel that a judge has committed misconduct, avenues are available to raise the issue, and have it determined within our Court system. Depending on the level of the Court, and the stage of the proceedings, possible avenues include appeal, criminal revision or motions to reopen decided cases.

Although the reopening of a case is very rarely done, there will be reopening if it is shown that an injustice has been caused. Judges guilty of misconduct will be dealt with through various disciplinary mechanisms depending on whether they are district judges or Justices of the Supreme Court.


This part essentially says that the justice system has avenues within itself to correct its own faults. This is a solution only when a justice system has enough integrity to correct itself. However, it is entirely possible, within the realm of imagination surely, that a system may have become so damaged systemically that these avenues are no longer realistic and the ills of the system go beyond single judgments.

At that point, it is free and open debate in society that will be key to highlighting the issues. Such discussion must necessarily begin with observations that are tentative and unproven, and in the public interest, generous leeway should be given to such fair comment.

TOC thanks Alex for allowing us to republish an excerpt of her blog post. The full article can be found at his blog Yawning Bread.


You May Also Like

网民分享墙内“出土”旧报纸经历 质疑组屋监管品质

随着建屋发展局在官方专页踢爆,有装修商疑偷工减料,以报纸填塞墙内空隙,也引来其他网民纷纷在各大媒体留言讨论,有部分网民也分享,这不是单一个案,他们在个人或一些组屋建筑单位,也曾在内墙发现有报纸填塞物,令公共组屋的品质受质疑。 [iframe id=”https://web.facebook.com/plugins/video.php?href=https%3A%2F%2Fweb.facebook.com%2FsingaporeNetc%2Fvideos%2F292428998227064%2F&show_text=1&width=476″] 新加坡大小事一段视频引起建屋发展局关注,相信是屋主上载到网络,申诉其组屋窗户边框竟以旧报纸填塞,装修偷工减料。(视频共享者:黄得峵)   网民Thomas Lee提出疑虑,是否以旧报纸填充墙内空隙已成常态?他说,他的组屋单位在80年代早期完工,“去年为了安装网线,在墙上钻孔,结果从里面拉出了很长一串的旧报纸,相信墙内还有很多,我没拉出来。” 发现报纸填塞,网民自行用洋灰填补 网民Linda Seow也指出,在8、90年代时期,在裕廊集团和建屋发展局城建的建筑物,也曾被发现使用报纸填塞墙壁结构;Georgia Tan 则指出,他在入住位于淡滨尼的首间组屋,也发现在缝隙中有用报纸填塞。无奈之下他把报纸去除,自己用洋灰把洞补上。他说,那是并不知道应该投诉给建屋发展局。这些组屋建筑大多建于70-80年代。…

《海峡时报》原提及李显扬一家出席粉红点集会 一小时后相关图文“被消失”

本月29日,总理弟弟李显扬和林学芬夫妇,陪同儿子李桓武和其新婚伴侣Heng Yirui医生一家,出席性少数平权活动“粉红点”(Pink Dot)集会。 本地主流英语媒体《海啸时报》自然也跟进报导有关盛事,其中也有图文提及李显扬一家有出席上述活动。 在原本的报导,《海峡时报》写道: “李显龙总理弟弟,李显扬也出现在集会群众中。他表示这是他陪同妻子林学芬、儿子李桓武和其伴侣,第一次出席粉红点集会。 这对同性伴侣刚在五月于南非新婚,获得家人出席。李显扬称出席集会以展示对儿子和其伴侣两人的支持。” 以下有《海峡时报》原报导为证:   报导也刊载李显扬一家人的合照: 然而有趣的是,一小时后,相关报导被修改,而且把提及李显扬一家出席集会的相关图文“消失”掉,只字不提。 如果读者们在点击阅读《海时》有关本周六粉红点集会的报导,已找不到提及李显扬一家的图文。…

“捍卫自由律师团”提告尚穆根 遭马国高庭撤销

马国高庭撤销当地人权律师组织“捍卫自由律师团”,对我国内政部长尚穆根提出的告诉。此前,尚穆根曾援引援引《防止网络假信息和防止网络操纵法案》(POFMA),下令更正有关“捍卫自由律师团”的一篇文章。 今年1月16日,“捍卫自由律师团”发表一则声明,指责樟宜监狱以残酷和不合法方式处决囚犯。 内政部驳斥相关内容,并强调政府不遗余力确保执法严格遵守法律程序,而执刑也都有监狱长或一名医生在场等。尚穆根更于22日援引 《防止网络假信息和网络操纵法令》,对该组织发出更正指令,并称文章内容不属实驳斥相关内容。 1月24日,“捍卫自由律师团”入禀法庭,要求马国法院裁决,尚穆根无法用防假消息法,对身在马国的“捍卫自由律师团”采取行动。该组织认为,此举如同把欺压性质的打假新闻法令,也对马国的言论伸出触角。 新加坡内政部今日(1日)也发布文告,该组织虽然提告尚穆根,但后续却未向他发出诉讼令状。反观该法庭文件也过期,而“捍卫自由律师团”也停止更新相关申请。有鉴于此,马国高庭上周一(21日)撤销了相关告诉。 文告指出,“捍卫自由律师团”曾指出将会提供证据证明,但却尚未有任何行动,基于该组织并未采取后续法律行动,因此足以证明目前所采取的法律行动是毫无根据的。