This is my comment on the  attempted action by the Law Society of Singapore against Lawyer M Ravi which I witnessed in court today.

When I ran my Hedge Fund  I had  a “global” remit meaning that I had permission to trade on any  and every stock exchange.  Potential Investors  would usually query that,  asking whether I would really take a position in any country. My answer was that I would only invest in  trades originating in Nations where there was a legal framework that I was familiar  with ( UK or US model) and where there was also demonstrable ‘Rule of Law’.  Although I had legal consultants on retainer  for the details, I needed those  basic pre conditions before I would consider a position.

There has never been any doubt that Singapore and its courts  score high on ‘The Rule of Law’ and control of corruption indicators  certainly as scored by institutions such as The World Bank’. However as a report by Lawyer’s Rights Watch of Canada  said,

“Notably, though, the definition of the World Bank’s rule of law indicator focuses on the predictability of rules with respect to economic interactions, and importantly, the extent to which contractual and property rights are protected.”

So as a Hedge Fund, a commercial entity, I was satisfied that  I could rely on  Rule of Law to protect my investors’ monies.

The real question is, can individuals and particularly those individuals going up against the PAP have a similar confidence in the Rule of Law?

Everyone agrees that Independence of the Judiciary is the cornerstone of The Rule of Law.  In other words, can we rely on independence of the judiciary when it comes to cases by individuals who are taking a stand that will be unpopular with the PAP government?

Let us be clear. Independence of the Judiciary  is not the same as impartiality of the judges. There is a detailed document by Lawyer’s Rights Watch of Canada on Singapore’s Legal independence and I recommend it as essential reading.  But here are a  few key factors taken from the report.

• Impartiality is the state of mind of the judge whereas Independence of the Judiciary is the status or relationship of the judicial branch to the other branches of government.
• Judicial independence comprises both an individual and an institutional component.
• The individual dimension relates to the independence of the particular judge. The institutional dimension relates to the independence of the court on which the judge sits
• Courts must be independent from all other participants in the justice system.
• Therefore the essence of judicial independence is that the “relationship between the judiciary and other branches of government be de-politicized.
• An individual judge may exhibit the essential conditions of judicial independence but if the court over which he or she presides is not independent of the other branches of government, then he or she cannot be said to be an independent tribunal.

You can read the report here.

http://www.lrwc.org/rule-of-law-in-singapore/

Tomorrow at 9:00 am I will be in Court for the first step in my own case. I am pleading this case,  which I feel is essential to all Singaporeans, as an individual.   And there is no doubt that it is a case which will be very unpopular with the PAP.

Coincidentally,  I was in court  today to support M Ravi and Madame Villema . Whilst there I witnessed an event  that allowed me to get close up and personal with the issues relating to independence of the judiciary. Although the best action was removed to chambers, my basic understanding is that  some gentlemen from Singapore’s Law Society tried to get M Ravi  taken off the case (or  disbarred?) by revealing details of a medical condition.  It was all over in minutes and I believe the judge basically told them to get lost-  I hope in Latin. I believe he said something along the lines that  M Ravi has a certificate to practise law and that was the end of it.

I am now satisfied  from my own personal experience that  the  Rule of Law and independence of the judiciary both on the institutional and the individual dimension is upheld.  However the Law Society, if indeed this action was prompted by them, has acted disgracefully  and so has the medical professional who released confidential medical information. Let us hope that the medical council deals with him in a manner that sufficiently demonstrates their independence.

M Ravi is  a true hero. Not only is he working on the by-election case and my case but he continues unabated on his work for death row inmates. Who else would take on all this work  pro-bono?  He needs all our support right now as does Madame Villema who is under great pressure from many sides.

Tomorrow promises to be an interesting day.  Are we to expect more dirty tricks?

Published by kjeyaretnam

I'm a Singaporean economist who became an opposition activist. I blog to provide an alternative to the porkies that the Pinkies tell. It just so happens that my alternative is the truth. That's why I've never been sued in any civil or criminal court no matter how hard hitting my criticism. I'm quoted and interviewed and asked to speak across the world but largely censored in Singapore in an effort to silence my political opinions. The left hate me because they think I split their vote and because I eschew their outmoded economic models. Models that don't work. The Right and the Conservatives hate me because I'm a liberal. I'm not sure what the middle think of me. I don't think there are more than a handful of people in the middle, here in Singapore. I'm a Singaporean born and bred, dual heritage, my parents Singaporean established here before the State of Singapore was created. I'm not Eurasian. I read economics at Cambridge and could be broadly described as from the Keynesian school but I believe in interventions. I was formerly a successful hedge fund manager. After economics and politics my greatest interests are history, film and Makan. I run but I run so I can eat like a Singaporean. View all posts by kjeyaretnam