As a former British colony, Singapore's legal system follows the Anglo-American legal system under which the concept "innocent until proven guilty" is deep-rooted and it is up to the prosecution to provide evidence to prove the crime.
Almost every attorney trained in Anglo-American law would advise his or her client to remain silent before a legal verdict is announced. An apology made before a verdict is announced may become incriminating evidence for the prosecution to present to the court.
Legal experts advising Singapore Airlines are expected to have strongly advised against a public apology of any nature by the airline and its pilots.
Taiwan on the other hands has a continental legal system under which once a person is charged, his or her name can be cleared upon the production of evidence of innocence.
This legal difference creates an environment in which people are more inclined to assume that a person is legally liable or guilty before a verdict is even announced. This explains why in many circumstances the media and the public at large seem to have tried and convicted suspects before a legal verdict is entered.
Should the pilots apologize right now? I would like to believe that neither side is trying to give each other a hard time or being insincere. They are bound to hold different positions as a result of the above-described legal and cultural differences.
One way to resolve the difference is to have the airline and the pilots apologize for "moral responsibility" right now. This way, the airline and pilots would not have to worry about the implications for their criminal liability, while at the same time they would pacify somewhat the victims' families, which is essential for a settlement of the upcoming civil suit.
Amy Wu is a member of the state bars of California and New York.
RSS