For a long time, I have always considered that the law and justice goes hand in hand. We do not want laws that produce unjust outcome.
I have met some lawyers who proudly proclaim their knowledge of the law, even if the outcome is unjust. They say, "This is the law". It is practiced as it was written and interpreted by the courts. It seemed to imply that the concept of justice is irrelevant.
I read this article with some interest, as it also touch on the concept of law and its outcome:
http://singaporedesk.blogspot.co.uk/2012/08/define-legal.html
We will be a poorer society, if the law is written to benefit certain people, who have the means to pay expensive lawyer to defend their interest against the common sense of justice!
I have met some lawyers who proudly proclaim their knowledge of the law, even if the outcome is unjust. They say, "This is the law". It is practiced as it was written and interpreted by the courts. It seemed to imply that the concept of justice is irrelevant.
I read this article with some interest, as it also touch on the concept of law and its outcome:
http://singaporedesk.blogspot.co.uk/2012/08/define-legal.html
We will be a poorer society, if the law is written to benefit certain people, who have the means to pay expensive lawyer to defend their interest against the common sense of justice!
9 comments:
40 years ago, I read a layman's guide to British Law. It clearly stated that common law would be changed by the principles of equity, i.e. if a law that was practiced before produce an unjust outcome, the judges would not hesitate to change the law.
But I did not remember if the judge that administer the common law are the same as the judge that apply the principles of equity. At least, there is a recourse to ensure a just outcome.
It is important for the practice of law in Singapore to have the same recourse. We should not have the principle that "this is the law".
My layman interpretation of Singapore Law is that it is written with many, many irrelevant laws so that Police can charge a person they have arrested with 100 charges. After appearing in court, prosecutor will finally charge with 1 charge in court and take the other 99 into consideration. Thanks to The Straits Times, this is my years of reading cases on this paper. Charges taken in consideration is always far greater than those that is use to punish the person. So you see, the POLICE is very powerful using our 20th century rule books....
Many people are upset in the application of law and justice in the Woffles Wu traffic cheating case.
This famous and rich plastic surgeon cheated not once, but twice, and he was just fined for the 2 offences, while other lesser mortal offenders, who committed only one, were jailed and/or fined. What a glaring example of injustice meted out by our Court.
And what rubbed salt into the wound is the case only came out for hearing after some years lag.
WP Sylvia Lim owed voters an explanation why this crucial matter of the long time lag was not highlighted in Parliament.
And Blogger Alex Au was humiliated and made to apologise publicly when he blogged about this execution of injustice.
What a big yawn, this intimidation of defamation and demand for apology is just a new twist to the old strong arm tactic of sueing in Court for cash compensation.
So nothing's changed, citizens have still to zip up our mouths, so what Feedback does the Govt wan,
we only say "Praise God Almighty", we dun say "Praise the PAP Govt", only the Supreme God is entitled to receive Praises from mortal beings like You and I.
Have posted my honest comments in the blog.
I have no faith in the way the Fair Competition Council mandated that that Guidelines be considered anti-competition.
"A TR Emeritus (TRE) reader, Edmund Lim, has earlier sent in his letter complaining about HDB wasting taxpayers’ money by engaging one of the 4 big law firms in Singapore, Allen & Gledhill to defend its case in court (‘Huge Waste of Taxpayers’ Money for HDB to engage Allen and Gledhill’s Legal Services‘).
His letter was subsequently picked up by Todayonline a week later [Link] after TRE has published it.
http://www.tremeritus.com/2012/08/24/why-hdb-must-use-expensive-law-firm-when-moe-didnt-mind-using-state-counsel/
We should have a law that make people who get less than 5% vote in election to become EP* (elected pariah).
Ha Ha Ha!
It takes a lot a lot of money and stamina to defend your point in court, if you have neither of these, then prepare to be bullied and keep quiet.
@2.51 pm
Whoever you are, you must be very sick in your mind to continue posting this type of personal attack here. and to do it continuously for a long time.
I see that you have continued to post another "sick" post at 2.53 pm.
GCT once said that he felt safe with WKS taking care of the security. Now WKS is not around as a Minister and Sgp is still as safe if not better. My point?
It is those professionals of our Police Force who are running and improving our home security. Ministers come and go, changed for whatever reason. They are there to lead and say something when it is needed. If this is the case, then how does one justify achievement after 5 years when most work are done by head of the department? You pay $800,000 a year for a Minister to be the Ministry spokeperson just in case there is a need? No one seems to know what each Ministers have achieved after 5 years in office except the PM. I personally think loyalty to the brand is more important than achievement. It is made worst and achievement is achieved by the professionals who earned a fraction of what the Ministers' earn. Is this correct? Why after all these years during GE, we do not know what the Ministers accomplished during their last 5 years and why no body ever ask? This may be the problem why we keep revisiting COE, House prices, low birthrate when each new term Minister will start the cycle of consultation, review and then implementation with the same outcome...
Post a Comment