Judicial independence in Singapore

To safeguard judicial independence, Singapore law lays down special procedures to be followed before the conduct of Supreme Court judges may be discussed in Parliament and for their removal from office for misconduct, and provides that their remuneration may not be reduced during their tenure.

However, the Constitution permits such judges to be re-appointed on a term basis, as well as for judicial commissioners to be appointed for limited periods, including the hearing of single cases.

The courts exercise judicial review of executive actions and legislation for compliance with the Constitution, empowering statutes and administrative law principles.

Furthermore, it is a pillar of economic growth as multinational businesses and investors have confidence to invest in the economy of a nation who has a strong and stable judiciary that is independent of interference.

Self-interest, ideological dedication and even corruption may influence the decisions of judges without any checks and balances in place to prevent this abuse of power if the judiciary is completely independent.

Judges are not required to give an entire account of their rationale behind decisions, and are shielded against public scrutiny and protected from legal repercussions.

[7] Part VII of the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore[8] is the main legislation which protects the independence of Supreme Court judges.

[17] In addition, under the Code of Conduct for the Attorney-General's Chambers legal officers are required to, among other things, "safeguard and enhance the proper administration of justice".

It is possible for an executive "bent on preserving its power at any cost" to control the judicial appointment process entirely, which would be undesirable as this may result in a bench packed with compliant judges.

[24] As former Chief Justice of Australia Harry Gibbs pointed out: Judicial commissions, advisory committees and procedures for consultation will all be useless unless there exists, among the politicians of all parties, a realization that the interest of the community requires that neither political nor personal patronage nor a desire to placate any section of a society, should play any part in making judicial appointments.

[30] In addition, to facilitate the disposal of business in the Supreme Court, judicial commissioners may be appointed for limited periods,[31] including the hearing of a single case only.

[34] District judges and magistrates of the State Courts are appointed to their positions by the Legal Service Commission (LSC) on a term basis, and do not enjoy security of tenure.

[36] Upon the Public Prosecutor's appeal to the High Court, Chief Justice Wee Chong Jin ordered retrials on the two charges of cheque fraud that the defendants had been acquitted of.

[37] In August 1981, before the retrials, Khoo was transferred to the Attorney General's Chambers to take up appointment as a deputy public prosecutor.

[42] In Parliamentary debates before and after the inquiry it was suggested on the one hand that the transfer had been routine and the timing coincidental, and on the other that it was related to Khoo's competence in handling the case.

Also, the appointment process may not be detrimental to the independence of the lower judiciary as the Chief Justice, who is not part of the executive or legislature, is the head of the LSC and has the final say on judicial postings.

[51] The conduct of a Supreme Court judge cannot be discussed in Parliament, except on a substantive motion of which notice has been given by not less than a quarter of the total number of MPs.

[52] In Singapore's context, given the large majority of seats held by the ruling party and the whip system that is in place, it is not difficult for the 25% requirement to be achieved.

It has been said that this causes potential executive interference with judicial independence to be counterproductive, and may give a judge more confidence to decide disputes without fear or favour.

[64] In 1989, Parliament intentionally curtailed the judiciary's ability to exercise judicial review of executive decisions made pursuant to the Internal Security Act.

In Singapore, where conviction rates for criminal offences are high, an acquittal is akin to the judiciary rejecting the executive's stand regarding a party's guilt.

Although it has been suggested that the low acquittal rate is evidence of a lack of judicial independence, it is also consistent with a stringent prosecution process that takes action only against persons who are manifestly guilty, such that even the most fair and independent-minded judge would decide to convict.

[64] Heavy scrutiny of the criminal justice system occurs when a person on trial is a political opponent of the executive government.

The pertinent question here, which is extremely difficult to answer, is whether the judge presiding over that particular case would have arrived at his decision in a different manner if the accused had not been a political opponent.

[72] According to a 1996 report by Dato' Param Cumaraswamy, then United Nations Special Rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers, allegations concerning the independence and impartiality of the Singapore judiciary "could have stemmed from the very high number of cases won by the Government or members of the ruling party in either contempt of court proceedings or defamation suits brought against critics of the Government, be they individuals or the media".

Stuart Littlemore observed the proceedings of a high-profile defamation suit filed by Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong against Jeyaretnam on behalf of the Geneva-based International Commission of Jurists (ICJ).

[78] Littlemore's application to represent Chee Soon Juan in 2002 for another defamation suit was rejected by the High Court for his previous remarks about the judiciary that were seen as contemptuous and disrespectful.

[80] Transparency International, in their 2006 country study report on Singapore, stated that truth was a defence to the "accusations and insinuations of nepotism and favouritism in government appointments" against government leaders that led to the defamation suits, and "[a]s such, if a serious accusation is made, the public hearing of these suits would give the defendant a prime opportunity to put forward the facts they allege.