Ms Sylvia Lim, Member of Parliament for Aljunied GRC has commented on her Facebook post that a local newspaper has contacted her for comments on the recent appointment of a former People’s Action Party (PAP) MP as Deputy Attorney-General, but stated to her that it cannot be published due to the lack of space.
She wrote:

“I was asked by a local paper whether I had any concerns about partisanship, given that Mr Kumar was such a strong critic of AHPETC, our WP-run Town Council.
I gave my response as follows (which I was just told would not be published due to lack of space):
“It is critical that persons entrusted with vast prosecutorial discretion act in the public interest, and not for partisan political gain. The appointment of a former PAP MP to such a post is not ideal. Whether my concerns prove to be founded or otherwise – remains to be seen”.

Mr Hri Kumar Nair, a former PAP MP, will be appointed Deputy Attorney-General with effect from March 2017.
Previously, he was also appointed a PAP Member of Parliament for Bishan-Toa Payoh GRC in the 2006 General Election. He served for two terms until 2015.
Mr Nair is currently a director at Drew and Napier with more than 25 years of experience as a lawyer. He was appointed Senior Counsel in 2008.
It is indeed puzzling that a newspaper will not be able to find enough space to publish the comments of Ms Lim.
However, it may not be so puzzling if one consider that Singapore is ranked 154th in the World Press Freedom index
The issue of appointment to the position of Attorney-General
In November last year, The Prime Minister Office (PMO) announced that Attorney-General, Mr V K Rajah S.C will be succeded by Mr Lucien Wong for a 3-year term with effect from 14 January 2017. Mr Rajah who was appointed Attorney-General on 25 June 2014, has ended his term on 14 Jan 2017 upon his reaching the retirement age of 60 years.
Mr Wong was 63 years old at the time of his appointment.
She had asked the Prime Minister on 10 January whether the appointment of the new Attorney-General, to take effect on 14 January 2017, accords with Article 35 of the Constitution, regarding specifically section 35(4) of the Constitution.
In response to Ms Lim’s clarification, the Minister of Law, Mr K Shanmugam states that the appointment of Mr Wong is in accordance with the Constitution, as he is appointed based on a fixed-term of 3 years instead of an undefined term. Mr Wong would then serve as AG till 2020, where it is likely to be the year of the next General Election.
Ms Lim also asked if the Government “would, in good faith, to clarify this matter, apply to court for an interpretation to see whether the Government’s view is correct.”
However, the Minister said that the Government has taken a view and also taken advice from AGC, asking that Ms Lim to apply to court herself.
She wrote on her Facebook a day after the session:

A few hours ago, President-elect Trump’s nominee for US Attorney-General (AG), Senator Jeff Sessions, faced the Senate Judiciary Committee for a public confirmation hearing. Senators scrutinised his track record and public feedback received on his potential appointment, including a protest letter signed by 1,100 law professors from 48 states.
What resonated with me most strongly were the concerns expressed about the public duty and independence expected of the AG. Senators expressly affirmed that the person appointed as AG owed a Constitutional duty to the People to uphold the law, and, as its top law enforcement officer, to apply the law without fear or favour. Sen Sessions was specifically asked whether he could be independent and stand up to the President if the occasion called for it.

These weighty questions should also be in our minds regarding our top law enforcement officials. Unlike the US system, we do not need Parliamentary approval of key public appointments such as the AG, so long as the President concurs with the advice of the PM and the Council of Presidential Advisors has no issue with it.
Yesterday (10 Jan 2017) in Parliament, I raised a question about whether Article 35 of our Constitution contemplates a person above the age of 60 assuming the post of AG for the first time. The focus was on the interpretation of the Constitution. The government did not see any issue with it. However, how to interpret Article 35 has not been decided by our local courts.
I hope Singaporeans will take a keen interest in the administration of justice, as it affects all of us fundamentally and deeply.
All of us are subject to the law, and entitled to the equal protection of the law, regardless of economic class, who we know or even political affiliation. How the law will be applied, especially in areas where discretion is allowed, will ultimately depend on the men and women empowered to apply it.

 

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

MOM: All migrant workers required to download TraceTogether by Phase 2

Following the increasing number of migrant workers’ dormitories being cleared of COVID-19,…

NTUC Fairprice in Hougang closes

The NTUC FairPrice Supermarket at Hougang Community Club has closed down with…

Some videos of the GE 2011 Forum at NUS (updated with Dr Chee’s rebuttal to Michael Palmer)

Political leaders on wheher their parties are viable at the GE 2011…

犹如战场:香港中文大学爆发大规模冲突 多名学生受伤

香港示威活动不断升级,自上周五一名大学生周梓乐示威期间坠楼后身亡,示威者为悼念他,于11月11日发起“三罢行动”,最后还衍生出警民冲突,警方在清场过程中,更是开枪射伤两名示威者,其中一名示威者情况危及。 然而,示威活动并没有因此平息,反而加剧了冲突。 综合港媒消息指出,昨日(12日)各区爆发大规模示威行动,示威者堵路并焚烧示威者晚上多次堵路并焚烧离物,警方除了施放催泪弹驱散之外,亦出动炮车射水,有示威者投掷汽油弹。 入夜后,大批防暴警察闯入中文大学、城市大学、香港大学、理工大学等校园,其中以中大最为惨烈。 据《立场新闻》报道,防暴警察在闯入校园后,施放大量催泪弹与橡胶子弹,同时拘捕多名示威者,而学生则以投掷转头、汽油弹等激烈反抗。 《路透社》则形容,香港中文大学数百名示威者聚集在校园内,与防暴警察激烈抵抗,现场状况惨烈,犹如战场。 香港中文大学校长段崇智则曾在傍晚到场调停,学生要求警方撤出校园并释放被捕者,但由于防暴警察称校长无法控制身后学生,称并非谈判的时候,要求他立即离开,随后警方与学生再次爆发冲突,而段崇智则被催泪弹击中,也在催泪弹中离开现场。 暴力升级影响港民 由于示威活动的暴力情况升级,为避免再有人收到伤害,香港教育局宣布停课,并表示由于受到示威者的广泛破坏,亦有学校遭受不同程度的威胁,因此宣布暂时停课。 教育局强烈谴责此等故意危害学童安全、剥夺学生学习基本权利的行为。 香港新界交通金早上再次陷入严重瘫痪,东铁及荃湾线全线暂停,西铁线荃湾西至屯门亦无列车服务,巴士亦只能提供有限度服务。 许多市民已无法正常上班。…