Singapore
“PAP MPs must not do anything that may give rise to any misperception that they can influence or interfere in the judicial process,” says Mr Chan Chun Sing.
File photo of Chan Chun Sing. (Photo: Lam Shushan)
SINGAPORE: People’s Action Party Whip Chan Chun Sing on Friday (Feb 9) reminded party Members of Parliament not to write to the courts on behalf of their constituents.
In an internal memo sent to the media, Mr Chan said the separation of powers between the Executive (the Government), Legislature (Parliament) and Judiciary (the Courts) is a fundamental principle of Singapore’s political system that is enshrined in the constitution.
“The PAP Government has always upheld this separation rigorously, and will continue to do so. PAP MPs must not do anything that may give rise to any misperception that they can influence or interfere in the judicial process,” he said.
Mr Chan, who is also a Minister in the Prime Minister’s Office, issued the memo after a PAP MP, Sengkang West SMC’s Lam Pin Min, wrote a letter to the courts on behalf of one of his constituents Tang Ling Lee.
A High Court judge subsequently said in his decision grounds that it was “somewhat troubling” for an appellant to try and downplay culpability through an MP’s letter.
The Attorney-General’s Chambers told Channel NewsAsia on Wednesday that it received 400 letters by MPs written on behalf of their constituents in 2017.
Mr Chan said that over the years, PAP MPs have, as a norm, refrained from writing to the courts on behalf of their constituents.
When approached by constituents over matters that come before the courts, PAP MPs may write to the Ministry of Law on procedural issues and AGC on prosecutorial issues. “This has been the general practice, and will remain so,” he said.
Mr Chan also said the courts are in the best position to evaluate, holistically and impartially, the evidence presented and the merits of a case.
“The courts have clear and strict procedures to uphold the independence and integrity of the judicial process. The separation of powers has never been in question even when the courts have received a letter from an MP, directly or indirectly,” he said.
