Lee Kuan Yew has said that in appointing judges, he has sought to appoint the builders of Singapore.  That may have been the motivation behind the appointment of the Chief Justice, Yong Pung How who, prior to being appointed to the bench, had not practised law for 20 years and whose qualifications to be Chief Justice appear largely to flow from his administering some of the largest Singapore companies, including Sing Tel and Singapore Airlines.  Yong Pung How C.J. does not have a lifetime appointment.  Being over the age of 65 he is subject to renewable appointments by the government.  Lack of security of tenure is a concern in all common law countries with respect to the independence of the judiciary.  A Chief Justice in Singapore is paid 100,000 Singapore dollars a month, and bonuses and the other benefits that go with being the Chief Justice.  The lack of security of tenure, financial security for the future and institutional independence create the potential for an appearance of lacking independence and being subject to improper influence.

Members of the bar interviewed by this observer have expressed a serious concern about the independence of judicial system in Singapore.  When it comes to politically charged cases, the bar does not see the court as independent of the government.  But, when it comes to ordinary commercial or other civil litigation, the bar views the court as eminently qualified, fair and impartial. 

In 1971, Mr. Jeyaretnam was elected as Secretary General of the Workers' Party.  In 1981, he won a by-election becoming the first opposition member in over fifteen years to sit in parliament with PAP parliamentarians. 

In 1976 Mr. Jeyaretnam made a political speech in which he said,

“I am not very good in the management of my own personal fortune, but Mr. Lee Kuan Yew has managed his personal fortune very well.  He is the Prime Minister of Singapore.  His wife is the senior partner of Lee and Lee, and his brother is the director of several companies, including Tat Lee Bank in Market Street; the bank which was given a permit with alacrity, banking permit license when other banks were having difficulties getting their license.... if I became Prime Minister there will be no firm of Jeyaretnam and Company in Singapore because I wouldn’t know how to manage my own fortune.”

The then Prime Minister successfully sued Mr. Jeyaretnam for defamation based on these statements, submitting that these words were understood to mean that he had procured preferential treatment for his brother and wife and an advantage to them and, thus, abused the office of the prime minister, and was awarded 130,000 Singapore dollars in damages.

Statements like those made by Mr. Jeyaretnam seem a necessary part of the political debate which occurs frequently and openly in Canada, such as when politicians call on the Prime Minister of Canada for an explanation of his personal investments. 

The issue raised is whether the public is entitled to know of these types of investments, and whether an opposition candidate is entitled to call on the Prime Minister for an explanation, no more or less than that. 

In the United States this type of political rhetoric could not be the subject of a defamation action, absent proof of malice, because when a politician chooses to become a candidate, he submits for public evaluation his honesty, integrity and fitness for the office.  In the other common law countries this question put by Mr. Jeyaretnam would be subject to a defence of qualified privilege.

Again in 1988, Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew sued Mr. Jeyaretnam for defamation arising from a political speech and was awarded damages of $260,000.00 Singapore dollars.  The defamation suit filed in l997 will now go forward, because the Court of Appeal dismissed Mr. Jeyaretnam’s appeal.