S'pore judiciary is 'open': Justice Rajendran

"ALLEGATIONS were made in this case that the plaintiff and his political allies have made use of the machinery of the courts to overwhelm their political opponents with litigation and sought by such means to render their opponents financially bankrupt, and thereby remove them from the political scene. I make no comment on these allegations save to point out that the defendant did not go so far as to suggest any complicity on the part of the judges in this alleged misuse.

On the contrary, the defendant specifically informed the court that he has every confidence in the impartiality and fairness of the court.

Underlying questions relating to the independence of the judiciary and the likelihood of a fair hearing inevitably surface when political leaders resort to the courts to pursue their claims. It would therefore be appropriate to briefly address this issue.

There are no private directives to a judge from the executive or from anyone else on how a case is to be conducted, how the judgment is to be phrased, how the law is to be applied or what matters of policy are to be considered.

The judge is expected to decide each case impartially in accordance with the evidence and in accordance with the law. Indeed, the Singapore Constitution requires every judge, on appointment, to take an oath that he will discharge his judicial duties without fear or favour, affection or ill-will, to the best of his ability and in accordance with law.

I would emphasise that what we have in Singapore is an open system of justice. All evidence and all arguments in all writ actions are presented in public. And the records of the courts are public documents available for public perusal.

Hearings being held in public, and only in public, any ruling and any judgment made by the court must stand the test of public scrutiny. Any appeal to the Court of Appeal is also heard in public and must again stand the test of public scrutiny.

This is one of the great strengths of our system of law. Any judgment that does not stand the test of public scrutiny will tend to destroy the integrity of the judiciary, and will be a disservice to the people of Singapore.

The issue before me is whether the words uttered by the defendant have defamed the plaintiff, and if so, what the proper amount of damages payable should be. I will decide those issues frankly and in accordance with established legal principles."