The absence of a jury system
for defamation cases raises a concern. A
jury system ensures the independence of the judicial system by standing between
the executive and the courts in cases of political rhetoric. It is of concern to this observer that Mr.
Jeyaretnam was precluded from having a civil jury trial in his defamation law
suits, because in a politically charged defamation lawsuit there has to be a
wall of separation between the executive and the courts. Juries have historically fulfilled that
function.
In Canada a defendant in defamation case has an absolute right to a
civil jury. In most other civil actions where the litigants are entitled to a
jury, either party can apply to strike a jury notice on the basis that the case
is too complicated to be heard by a jury, but the plaintiff cannot prevent a
jury trial in defamation law suits.[25]
Juries have never been available for civil trials in Singapore. The original provision for jury trials in
criminal cases in Singapore was restricted in 1960 to capital offences, and
then, in 1970, over the objections of bar, the jury system was abolished
altogether. Lee Kuan Yew was
instrumental in the eventual abolition of juries. The bill to abolish juries was referred in 1969 to a select
committee. Lee Kuan Yew sat on the
committee and delivered the keynote speech in the political debate over the
abolishment of jury trials.[26]
The University of Singapore Law Society and the Council of Singapore
Advocates and Solicitors’ Society both presented written submissions to the
government that vigorously opposed the abolishment of the jury system based in
part on submissions that abolition would lead to a lack of independence in the
judiciary or minimally the appearance of lack of impartiality.
The University of Singapore Law Society submitted:
“...the abolition of jury trials affects all capital offences; not only
murder and kidnapping, but treason as well.
As treason is inevitably a political act, it is not inconceivable that
some government in the future would assert pressure on High Court judges to
come to a `correct’ decision. If, however,
that fact finding function remains as it is with the jury, it is much less
likely that such pressure can be applied to seven persons whose means of
livelihood may not be so dependent on the pleasure of the government.”[27]
Election speeches are equally political and Mr. Jeyaretnam should have
been entitled to a jury. The Council of
Singapore Advocates and Solicitors’ Society raised the same concern:
“The historical reason for the jury in criminal trials and its major
attraction in democratic countries is that it interposes a group of anonymous
persons between the government and the citizens in the administration of
criminal justice. Because of its very
anonymity, the jury sieves out personal whims and animosities of the government
and provides the best system of impartial justice known. That is why no jury system survives in a
totalitarian state.”[28]
(Underlining added)
In response to the Council of the Singapore Advocates and Solicitors’
Society, Lee Kuan Yew is reported to have replied that the judicial system in
any country is essentially a part of the administration of the country. Ominously, the failure of the Prime Minister
to see the need for a separation between the courts and the administration of the
country eroded confidence in his judicial appointments.
It is of concern that Mr. Jeyaretnam could not have a jury trial in what
have been essentially political trials involving freedom of political
expression.
