Singapore ranks number 1 in the Rule of Law Index 2012/2013 for the administration of civil and criminal justice in the East Asia and Pacific region and 4th (Civil Justice) and 3rd (Criminal Justice) among 97 countries in the world. See http://worldjusticeproject.org/country/singapore
It is no mean feat to score so well in the regional and world stage. But can we sustain such rankings next year?
Our famous blogger, Alex Au is on the verge of being hauled before the court. On 27 Nov 2013, leave was granted to the Attorney-General for the issue of contempt of court proceedings in respect of his article – “377A wheels come off Supreme Court’s best-laid plans”. This article has since been withdrawn from his blog for fear of causing aggravated damages. http://yawningbread.wordpress.com/2013/11/27/agc-versus-me-the-2013-round/
No doubt, Au’s lawyers will be served with the legal documents this coming week despite protests from his friends and supporters.
http://www.theonlinecitizen.com/2013/11/statement-on-agc-action-against-alex-au/
The AG claims that Au had scandalised the court with his speculations on the reasons for the delays in fixing the date for hearing of Tan Eng Hong’s case. All these speculations would not have arisen had Tan’s case been heard expeditiously and judgement delivered in good time. Tan’s case was apparently filed earlier than a similar section 377A case brought by Kenneth Chee and Gary Lim (Chee and Lim). The latter was heard earlier even though the case was filed later than Tan’s. Judgement was also delivered before Tan’s case which suffered lengthy delays. I understand that Tan’s appeal is now to be heard together with Chee and Lim’s.
Delays in the administration of justice happens all over the world especially in developing countries because of the shortage of judges and financial resources. In developed countries such as Singapore where we boast of an incorruptible system, such delays should not happen. There must be an efficient queue system where cases are heard according to the dates of filing, unless there are good reasons as to why certain cases are to be heard earlier than others. In Chee and Lim’s case, I cannot see any plausible reason. I would consider political prisoners who are detained without trial as urgent cases and should be granted priority over civil matters. Short of personal liberty being involved, I see no reason why cases should not be heard according to the dates of filing. First filed, first heard. And judgements should be delivered according to the first heard and first delivered basis.
There is a legal maxim which I learned in law school decades ago – “Justice delayed is justice denied”.
When a party suffers injury, legal redress must be timely or such remedies may be rendered ineffective. In the late 1980s, I was denied justice because of inordinate delays on the part of the registrar in granting me hearing dates and the high court judges in delivering their judgements. During all those months of delay, I was in prison without trial. My legal practice was completely ruined while the judges took their time to deliberate on my fate. Though my appeal for freedom was heard a month before another appeal by three of my friends, judgement was not delivered before theirs. Indeed, the court of appeal decided to consolidate the judgement of my three friends and me even though we never sought such consolidation of hearing or judgement. The delay in delivering that judgement by nearly four months cost me the opportunity of going before a higher court, the Privy Council and resulted in my having to pay substantial costs to the AG subsequently.
The delay in the hearing of Tan’s case and the delivery of the judgement reminded me of my own case. I don’t know the reason for the delay. But I can say that such delays do not help Singapore’s reputation in the world. Why was there a jumping of queue and a delay in delivery of judgement. Will we see a fall in the Rule of Law ranking next year?
Teo Soh Lung
Ms Teo Soh Lung graduated from the Univ of Singapore with a Bachelor of Laws (LLB Hons) in 1973 and served her pupillage under the late David Marshall. In 1981, she set up her own law firm in Aljunied and in 1985, she co-founded the Law Society Criminal Legal Aid Scheme which offers free legal assistance for criminal cases to the poor and needy members of the public.
Ms Teo also chaired a sub-committee under the Law Society which reviewed the Legal Profession Amendment Bill. One of the amendments to the bill had sought to take away the duty of the Law Society to comment on legislation. She called an EGM of the Society which overwhelmingly passed a motion calling on the government to withdraw the bill. Shortly after, she was subpoenaed to appear before a Parliamentary Select Committee and was vigorously questioned by then PM Lee Kuan Yew. She steadfastly defended her stand and the Law Society. She was subsequently elected as a member of the Council of the Law Society.
Some months later, in May 1987, she was arrested and detained without trial under the ISA together with the others for purported involvement in a conspiracy to overthrow the Govt by force and replace it with a Marxist state. She was released after 4 months but was imprisoned again in 1988 for refuting the government’s allegations against her. She was finally released in June 1990.
Soh Lung published her memoir Beyond the Blue Gate: Recollections of a Political Prisoner in 2010 and was one of the editors of Our Thoughts Are Free: Poems and Prose on Imprisonment and Exile in 2009.