Judicial and legal institutions in Asia, in general and Singapore, in particular, have come under criticism on the ground that they are not independent from the government of the day. This article explores the problems involved in assessing the value of such a critique: the open-endedness of the idea of independence itself (which in real life is a matter of degree), empirical difficulties in demonstrating that these institutions have indeed succumbed to improper government pressure, and the need to distinguish between institutional independence (as determined by constitutional agreements) and actual independence (as demonstrated by the decisions made in particular cases).