Francis Seow, former Solicitor-General of Singapore, on The Politics of Judicial Institutions in Singapore:

The judiciary — a bulwark between citizen and state — plays a consequential role in the affairs of a nation, and often sets the ultimate seal of legitimacy on controversial policies and actions of the state by its decisions. Governments, therefore, try to ensure those persons, who are called upon to make these weighty decisions, understand the purpose of controverted legislative acts and policies. The PAP government is no exception. It also tries to ensure that judicial aspirants are screened for loyalty and political correctness. Although the PAP government recognizes the role of the judiciary in the body politic, it no longer sees it as a check on the balance of power in the traditional sense but rather as an important instrument for the prolongation of its political longevity.

High court judges are appointed from within the legal and judicial service and among qualified members of the bar by the president on the advice of the prime minister after consultation with the chief justice. Judges hold their appointment until the age of 65 years and thereafter at the will of the president. For many years, retiring high court judges have had their appointments extended on contract for short periods at a time and, in some cases, from month to month. Judicial commissioners are employed on time contract. Some do, indeed, make the grade to the high court bench. Needless to say, judges on contract, renewable at the will of the prime minister, is not conducive to judicial independence.

Judgments of the appellate court have to be unanimous, and are delivered by a single judge detailed by the chief justice beforehand. No dissension is countenanced lest a perception is created of disunity within the judicial ranks. Cases are allocated to judges by the registrar of the supreme court, on chief justice’s instructions, and not rotated, or drawn by lots, or channelled to special divisions of the court. Thus, it is not uncommon to find a particular judge, like T.S. Sinnathuray, being commonly assigned sensitive cases with predictable results. Judges known for impartiality, independence and strength of character are never assigned them.

I knew i’d never be appointed judge.

But, jokes aside, I can’t describe, really, how i feel about the whole issue.

It’s stomach-churning fear, amazement and despair mixed in with a little loathing. And more. On top of it all, though, i feel sad and ashamed, sad and ashamed that we are supposedly one of the most incorruptible states in the world, and yet this happens.

Corruption isn’t just about exchanging money for favours, corruption is also about patron-client relationships. It’s about the lack of independence to make decisions because one feels indebted to, and obligated to, someone else for one’s position. It’s about not being able to make a decision free from any other consideration apart from what is ‘just, equitable and conscionable’.

I wonder if the judges realise how they’ve been implicated into this scheme. Do they actively know, and pretend to be ignorant; Or, are they truly unaware of their role in this?

But most of all, I wonder if they even care.