The judiciary as an objective state organ.

I am no legal expert neither am I a lawyer by training- but there was one question that I asked myself: How impartial is our legal system or judiciary? Let me set up the context the importance of impartiality of our judiciary.

There three main state organs: 1) Executive- which is in effect the civil service, they are the ones who execute the laws, ie the police 2) Legislative- the people are enact the laws, they are the ministers or members of parliament and 3) Judiciary- the justice system, the judges and they are the one's who interpret the laws.

According to western democratic political system, each of these three state organs must be separate from each other so that no one single person or entity can have a preponderant effect on the country and how it governs. This is to prevent any form of autocracy from happening. Take for example, long before the existing political system, the king held control over the executive, the people who executive the laws ie the police and the army. He could command the police to catch anyone who he deemed that contravene the law. He also enact the laws, he also sets out rules for all it's people to abide by. He is the law and above the law. Lastly he also interpret the laws, he can decide whether this person has broken the law and how heavy the punishment should be. Therefore he controls are three state organs.

In the modern context, all three state organs must act freely from each other to prevent anyone from abusing their authority. For example, a corrupted member of parliament can be prosecuted by the police and send to jail by the judges because the MP cannot prevent the law from enforced and also being pronounced guilty if there is sufficient evidence against him.

Take for example, the members of parliament exert an undue influence on the judiciary and pronounced the member of parliament not guilty  in spite of overwhelming evidence. In this case, the political system is not working as it is supposed to.

Therefore the judiciary is important in it's role in ensuring that no one is above the law. He or she must interpret the laws impartially to ensure the laws are fair to everyone and no favouritism is shown.

But this question begs my first question: But how objective is our judiciary? In other words, how does the judges apply the letter of law to it's letter?

It is my belief that the judiciary is not objective. It differs from country to country and depends on the political culture and system of the country and it's societal and economic context.

If it differs from country to country, how then can the legal system or judiciary by fair in the first place?

I believe that and I cannot speak for the judges themselves, the judges also take into consideration the above factors when interpreting the laws. This means that depending on country to country, the country also judge on expediencies of the country. China is not a good example but it demonstrates that the laws can be applied depending on the context. One can be shot or even imprisoned for life for corruption in China but this is not necessarily true in Western style legal system. Similarly, some countries uses the legal system to bring down the opposition. Take for example, in Singapore, it is almost "institutionalized" that anyone who speaks untruths or blow things out of proportion against the ruling party, he is liable to be sued by the incumbents for slander. This is considered as "undemocratic" and "authoritarian" in nature by many Western style democracies

On the other end of continuum, in America, children can sue their parents for physical abuse- and be successful- if they are physically disciplined. This would be ridiculous in the Asian context.

To me, the judiciary are the moral arbiters of society. They set the tone for society what can or cannot be done and how serious your actions can be. They are not objective arbiters of the truth and apply the law "without any bias". Depending on the context of the country, some judgements can be deemed as "unfair" or "undemocratic" to some, all other's are seem as "overly- litigious".

Therefore, in my opinion, do not compare the judgements of your country and think that one's legal system is "unfair" and "primitive". The judges are also guided by the moral, economic, political and societal tone of the country before they make judgements. They can be autonomous but not necessarily objective.