Judicial system of Singapore

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Singapore

This article is part of the series:
Politics and government of
Singapore

Constitution

Legislature

Executive

Judiciary

Elections
Other countries · Atlas
 Politics Portal
view • talk • edit

The full Judicial power in Singapore is vested in the Supreme Court as well as subordinate courts by the constitution. The Supreme Court consists of the Court of Appeal and the High Court. The Court of Appeal exercises appellate criminal and civil jurisdiction, while the High Court exercises both original and appellate criminal and civil jurisdiction.[1] The Chief Justice, Judges of Appeal, Judicial Commissioners and High Court Judges are appointed by the president from candidates recommended by the prime minister. The prime minister must consult with the Chief Justice before recommending the judges. The current Chief Justice is Chan Sek Keong.

In 2006, the subordinate courts initiated a pilot scheme to appoint specialist judges to the Bench. These judges will come from the legal profession and academia and the scheme is aimed at bringing additional expertise to the subordinate courts as well as giving practitioners and academics an insight to the workings of the judiciary of Singapore.[2]

Jury trials were abolished in 1969 and the Criminal Procedure Code was amended in 1992 to allow for trials of capital offences to be heard before a single judge.[3] The Court of Appeal is Singapore's final court of appeal after the right of appeal to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in London was abolished in April 1994. The president has the power to grant pardons on the advice of the cabinet.[4]

Singapore practices the common law legal system, where the decisions of higher courts constitute binding precedent upon courts of equal or lower status within their jurisdiction, as opposed to the civil law legal system in the continental Europe. The current criminal code was preceded by the Indian Penal Code which was adopted when Singapore was a crown colony, and some archaic laws still remain unchanged after independence, such as homosexual acts between men (see Section 377A of the Singapore Penal Code).

Critics have said that although the judicial system provides citizens with an efficient judicial process, the judiciary is largely compliant and the government often use defamation suits or the threat of such actions to discourage public criticism and intimidate the press.[5]

[edit] Judicial independence

Singapore has a reputation for fairness and impartiality in commercial law, and is a popular jurisdiction for arbitration and trial in South-East Asia. The Canadian case of Oakwell Engineering v. Enernorth Industries called into question this impartiality and raised the issue of whether the judgments of Singaporean courts are enforceable outside Singapore, but claims of links between the judiciary, business and the executive arm in Singapore which were alleged to suggest a real risk of judicial bias were dismissed in appeals to the Ontario Court of Appeal and Canadian Supreme Court.[1]


However outside the context of comercial law, there have been criticisms that the Singapore judiciary have been used as a tool in attacking members of the opposition. Opposition members like Tang Liang Hong, Joshua Benjamin Jeyaretnam and Chee Soon Juan have been sued succesfully and made bankrupt by members of the People's Action Party like Lee Kuan Yew. This is in stark contrast to a libel suit by Lee Kuan Yew against Devan Nair in a Canadian court which was dismissed in 2002.[6]

[edit] Notes

  1. ^  Supreme Court of Judiciature Act. Attorney-General's Chambers of Singapore website. Retrieved on June 9, 2005.
  2. ^  History. Supreme Court of Singapore website. Retrieved on June 9, 2005.
  3. ^  Dean of NUS Law Faculty Appointed Specialist Judge. wwlegal.com. Retrieved on 15 December 2006.
  4. ^  The President. Attorney-General's Chambers of Singapore website. Retrieved on January 29, 2005.
  5. ^  Country Reports on Human Rights Practices - Singapore. U.S. Department of State website. Retrieved on May 17, 2005.
  1. ^ K.C. Vijayan, "Payout Fight Over 'Biased Judiciary' Rejected: Firm's Final Bid to Canada's Highest Court Fails, so S'pore Court Judgment Stands", The Straits Times (January 27, 2007).

[edit] See also