Introduction to Singapore Legal System

docx

School

Jomo Kenyatta University of Agriculture and Technology, Nairobi *

*We aren’t endorsed by this school

Course

421

Subject

Law

Date

Nov 24, 2024

Type

docx

Pages

Uploaded by GeneralUniverseOwl24

1 Introduction to Singapore Legal System Course Code Title of the TMA SUSS PI No. Your Name Submission Date

2 Question 1 Explain the concept of judicial independence Although the judiciary is often included in discussions of the federal government's three branches, it distinguishes itself and the scope of its authority by remaining separate from the other two. The democratic form of government cannot work efficiently without the judiciary's ability to uphold law and order under the Constitution. Under the Constitution, the judiciary is entrusted with ensuring that the arbitrary use of authority and administrative abuse are not allowed to go unchecked. Judges and courts have a right to do their tasks without interference or control from any other party, whether it is the government of another country or an entity that is not. For people who appear before them and the general public to have faith that their cases will be judged fairly and according to the law, it is essential in a democracy that individual judges and the judiciary as a whole remain impartial and independent of all extraneous influences. They must not be influenced in any way while doing their judicial duties. Individual judges or the judiciary might be described as having judicial independence. Neo & Teo (2020) argues that from a practical standpoint, there is no clear winner between the two. It is possible that judges may not fully enforce the rule of law if judicial independence is guaranteed just at the institutional level but not at the individual level, which might result in less than full enforcement. Justice should be free from interference by political and commercial interests and those who seek to influence the court in a partisan or illegitimate manner. According to Mohammadf ( 2021 ), in order to ensure the rule of law is upheld, practicing democracy is essential. To protect the independence of the judiciary, Singapore law sets forth a series of rules and processes that must be followed before a Supreme Court judge's behavior may be addressed in Parliament, and they can be removed from office for

3 misconduct. According to state law, judges in the State Courts are immune from civil litigation and banned from hearing or making decisions in situations in which they have a personal interest ( Mohammadf, 2021). Supreme Court justices have the same legal protections and limitations as lower court judges. For contempt of court, state courts and the Supreme Court can impose fines and penalties, but only the Supreme Court may condemn someone for disrespecting the court. The President appoints the Chief Justice and other Supreme Court justices on the recommendation of the Cabinet. If the President does not agree with his Cabinet's recommendations, he has the power to veto the appointment of a new judge by consulting the Chief Justice. Once a Supreme Court judge reaches the age of 65, they are no longer eligible to serve on the court ( Neo & Teo , 2020) . Although the Constitution allows for the appointment of judicial commissioners for short-time periods, including the hearing of a single case, it also allows for the appointment of such judges on a term basis. Executive acts and legislation are subject to judicial scrutiny to ensure that they are under the Constitution, the laws that provide its independence, and the norms of administrative law. The fact that the executive has a low incidence of judicial disagreement may not be evidence of unwarranted deference but rather that the administration has achieved a high degree of justice in its decision-making, as has been emphasized. A court's independence must generally be safeguarded against an influential party whose interests are at risk, and this is true in general ( Mohammadf, 2021). As long as both parties are strong, they may offer some or all of the security they need. People's Action Party members and the government have won several defamation lawsuits brought against them, which has led to accusations that the court is not independent. b) Examine how the Constitution and other legislation safeguard judicial independence in Singapore.

Your preview ends here

Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version

Access to all documents
Unlimited textbook solutions
24/7 expert homework help

4 The independence of Singapore's Supreme Court justices is largely safeguarded under Part VII of the country's Constitution. Article 93 recognizes and accepts that the Singapore judiciary is an independent institution vested judicial authority without imposing any restrictions on how it may be used in cases within the court's jurisdiction. Other legislative protections in Part VII serve as a barrier against outside influences. Before being adopted, constitutional amendments need the support of all legislators at the 2nd and 3rd Readings of constitutional change proposals. In light of the existing constitutional arrangements, it has been pointed out, nominating judges who share the executive branch's belief in the justice and legitimacy of its policies. To avoid an overcrowded bench, an administration "dedicated to preserving its authority at all costs" might exert complete control over the process of appointing judges. More importantly, judges are provided with tenure security, which is key in promoting their independence. Independence of the judiciary depends on judges who are not subjected to pressure from the executive or legislative bodies of government to have their positions renewed regularly. Holmøyvik & Sanders (2020) explains that there is no life tenure in Singapore for the Supreme Court justices. They may continue to serve in their positions for another 65 years. The constitution also provides clear guidelines on the removal of judges in Singapore. Judges may only be dismissed for misconduct or incompetence, not for other reasons. The removal of a Supreme Court judge may only be done if a panel of their peers recommends it. Such an approach may be preferable to where judges are removed from office by politicians since it will be less vulnerable to political interference. Appropriate compensation for judges is critical to judicial independence since control over an individual's sustenance equates to power over his will ( Bjørnskov & Voigt , 2021). The constitution guarantees the compensation of a Supreme Court judge in Singapore, and it cannot be lowered during their term. In addition, the amount of compensation given to judges

5 is sufficient to ensure that they can maintain a quality of living commensurate with their position in the community. As a result, judges who receive low salaries are more susceptible to accepting bribes from parties with a vested interest in their outcomes. Indeed, the Constitution does not preclude the government from adopting a program of rewarding judges who provide favorable verdicts. The constitution also provides judges immunity from civil suits to ensure judicial independence. To foster judicial independence, judges are shielded from legal action for their actions or inactions in the performance of judicial tasks. State Courts Act ("SCA") states that district judges, magistrates, coroners, and registrars are immune from suit for any act they perform in their duties as judges, whether or not they are acting within the scope of their jurisdiction. According to Bjørnskov & Voigt (2021) , this applies even if the judge did not believe he was acting within the scope of his jurisdiction when the act complained of occurred. When it comes to the Supreme Court, no specific statute applies. Still, under common law, every judicial act that a judge does in their official role is protected from personal civil responsibility. As long as the judge behaved fairly and in good faith, he is protected from prosecution for activities outside his authority. Question 2 Review to what extent the "Crime Control" model represents Singapore's Criminal Justice System In Singapore, the "Crime Control" model presumes that when a suspect is apprehended, there is a presumption of guilt. In addition, offenders are subjected to severe penalties for vengeance and deterrents. Pre-trial procedures' effectiveness reduced the judiciary's involvement. Singapore places a strong emphasis on crime prevention. The crime control model's goal is to safeguard the public interest from people who are considered a threat to society ( Ho, 2019). The police questioning technique has no clear norms in

6 Singapore. The right to remain silent has been ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court, and on the legislative level, it has a penalty of negative connotation. While interrogator remarks are generally not admissible in court, they may be admitted if the statements are contrary to what the defendant has stated. In principle, Crime Control and Due Process are two distinct approaches to reducing crime. However, a nation cannot embrace one completely. Thirumaran (2019) explains that the legal system will always have some semblance of both approaches. Several human rights groups have expressed displeasure with Singapore's emphasis on policing and crime prevention. Singapore has been urged to adopt a due process-oriented judicial system. Keeping a nation as crime-free as feasible is the primary goal of the crime control paradigm. It works much like an assembly line when bringing criminals to prison and delivering justice to victims. The "Crime Control" model represents an ideology that it is better to condemn one innocent person than to let ten criminal ones go free. Procedural and investigative procedures have a significant impact on Singapore's crime prevention. In terms of resources and authority, law enforcement officers are given a lot of assistance. There will always be critics on all sides of any issue, no matter what approach is used. On the other hand, Singapore's adoption of the crime control strategy is not completely without merit. When it first obtained independence from the British and later split from Malaysia, Singapore was only a "little red dot" with a tiny geographical area and minimal resources. Consequently, the due process concept was replaced with a crime control one. Singapore's economy has grown due to investors' faith in the country ( Xavier & Bianchi, 2020). Many have applauded its effectiveness in dealing with criminals since crime rates have reduced significantly after implementation. Some human rights and civil freedoms will have to be sacrificed for the sake of a more lawless and ruthless society.

Your preview ends here

Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version

Access to all documents
Unlimited textbook solutions
24/7 expert homework help

7 "Crime Control" application has also faced a lot of drawbacks in Singapore. Xavier & Bianchi ( 2020) explains that law enforcement officers misuse their authority and condemn innocent people. Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts utterly ( Xavier & Bianchi, 2020). Many critics of the crime control approach have expressed similar concerns. The confidence placed in these organizations is not being adequately monitored. According to Thirumaran (2019) , deterrence and vengeance are sometimes used as justifications for severe penalties, but there is no evidence supporting Singapore's assertion that this approach has succeeded. The line between right and wrong may get blurred in the pursuit of justice because of the rigor with which it is pursued. However, a crime-control mechanism is not the only option available to Singapore's criminal justice system. The due process model that the British left behind may be seen here. The legal system in Singapore is designed with fairness in mind. The Grounds of Decision reports require judges to explain why they made their conclusions. Authorities and the public alike keep a close eye on law enforcement agencies. b) Identify and discuss the various sentencing principles in criminal cases and examine the extent to which the sentencing options in Singapore reflect the sentencing principle of rehabilitation. The sentencing phase of the criminal justice system is critical to its success. The Court considers a variety of variables, both related to the crime and the perpetrator while determining the proper sentence. Only after the prosecution and defense have worked together to determine the proper sentencing can the Court be certain that the offender will receive a penalty that is both just and fair. The following are the four fundamental criteria for determining a defendant's sentence; 1. Retribution; The severity of the offense and the perpetrator's guilt should be taken into account while determining punishment.

8 2. Deterrence; Deterrence may be broken down into general and specialized deterrence. To stop others from participating in similar behavior, the punishment given to a specific criminal serves as a deterrent. On the other hand, specific deterrence targets the criminal and aims to dissuade him from repeating his crimes. For repeat offenders, this becomes even more critical. 3. Prevention; The criminal is rendered physically unable by being imprisoned, i.e., he is unable to hurt anybody else. 4. Rehabilitation; The Court will evaluate the offender's ability to change and the best disciplinary regime for that change when deciding on the appropriate sentence to be meted down to them. As an essential concept, early intervention is an integral part of Singapore's progressive approach to dealing with juvenile delinquency and crime. Initiatives to assist convicts in reintegrating into society are the focus of rehabilitation efforts. Tan (2018) explains that this is done through working together with the offender's family and the community and ensuring that the public's safety is not compromised. Sanctions get more severe for individuals who refuse to cooperate and commit further offenses. The use of jail as a punishment, incapacitation, deterrent, rehabilitation, reformation, and reintegration strategy is reserved for criminals deemed unfit for community-based rehabilitation. In Singapore's criminal justice system, community-based rehabilitation programs for appropriate offenders are becoming more commonplace. Offenders may be effectively punished without affecting their personal or professional lives. At the same time, they can be rehabilitated to reduce the likelihood that they would commit another crime and, therefore, maintain the public's safety. According to Thirumaran (2019) , the use of a graded approach to rehabilitating criminals includes several different organizations. In addition to the Ministry of Social and Family Development and the Ministry of Home Affairs, several non-profit welfare

9 organizations serve the public. Probation and the newly proposed Community Orders are three options for pre-court diversionary interventions available to residents. Judicial institutions include youth rehabilitation centers and jails. Probationers and their clients benefit from community service programs that have changed through time to meet their requirements better. CSO is based on the offender's interests, talents, and skills. When probationers started working, they mostly did basic tasks, including cleaning the agency's offices. Probationers now can participate in a wide range of activities, such as working with the needy, developing new projects, and more. It is hoped that by doing so, kids would take responsibility for their community work and experience a sense of purpose in doing so. In 1996, the CSO program began with ten social service organizations ( Tan , 2018) . Today, there are more than 130 organizations that supply probationers with community service positions ( Tan , 2018) . It was these organizations that opened their doors to welcome probationers, provided them with a chance to make a positive impact in the lives of other people, and in so doing, helped them to become more responsible members of the community and society. Despite the best intentions of everyone involved in the rehabilitation of criminals in the community, it is necessary to consider the likelihood of failure. Some will re-offend despite the combined efforts of a large support network and strict monitoring. This highlights the difficulty of community-based rehabilitation, especially for offenders with various risks and needs difficulties. There is more responsibility for public safety when more offenders with higher risk and needs are evaluated for community-based rehabilitation. To obtain better results, it is vital to ensure that the systems and procedures for risk assessment and inter- agency coordination are strong.

Your preview ends here

Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version

Access to all documents
Unlimited textbook solutions
24/7 expert homework help

10 References Bjørnskov, C., & Voigt, S. (2021). Is constitutionalized media freedom only window dressing? Evidence from terrorist attacks. Public Choice , 187 (3), 321-348. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11127-020-00783-9 Ho, H. L. (2019). Criminal Justice and the Exclusion of Incriminating Statements in Singapore. In Do Exclusionary Rules Ensure a Fair Trial? (pp. 213-252). Springer, Cham. https://library.oapen.org/bitstream/handle/20.500.12657/23097/1007061.pdf? sequence=1#page=223 Holmøyvik, E., & Sanders, A. (2020). A Stress Test for Europe's Judiciaries. In European Yearbook of Constitutional Law 2019 (pp. 289-312). TMC Asser Press, The Hague. https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-94-6265-359-7_12 Mohammadf, F. (2021). Effect Judicial Independence on the Foreign Direct Investment in South and South-East Asian Countries. https://assets.researchsquare.com/files/rs- 171730/v1_covered.pdf?c=1631853096 Neo, J. L., & Teo, M. (2020). Constitutional Review in a Strong State: The Case of Singapore. CALE Discussion Paper , (19), 51-64. https://ci.nii.ac.jp/naid/120006900491/ Tan, B. Z. P. (2018). Assessing the effectiveness of sentencing guideline judgments in Singapore issued Post-March 2013 and a guide to constructing frameworks. Singapore Academy of Law Journal , 30 (2), 1004-1063. info:doi/10.18999/caledp.19.51

11 Thirumaran, K. J. (2019). The evolution of the Singapore criminal justice process. SAcLJ , 31 , 1042. https://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?handle=hein.journals/saclj31&div=29&id= &page= Xavier, J. A., & Bianchi, C. (2020). An outcome-based dynamic performance management approach to collaborative governance in crime control: Insights from Malaysia. Journal of Management and Governance , 24 (4), 1089-1114. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10997-019-09486-w

Introduction to Singapore Legal System

Related Documents