• IP addresses are NOT logged in this forum so there's no point asking. Please note that this forum is full of homophobes, racists, lunatics, schizophrenics & absolute nut jobs with a smattering of geniuses, Chinese chauvinists, Moderate Muslims and last but not least a couple of "know-it-alls" constantly sprouting their dubious wisdom. If you believe that content generated by unsavory characters might cause you offense PLEASE LEAVE NOW! Sammyboy Admin and Staff are not responsible for your hurt feelings should you choose to read any of the content here.

    The OTHER forum is HERE so please stop asking.

PAP Spin: Elected President cannot be changed forever

winnipegjets

Alfrescian (Inf)
Asset
Ending elected presidency may not work

Any move to abolish the elected presidency may well not work - even if passed by Parliament.

Two lawyers suggest such a scenario as an example of how the separation of powers between the executive, the legislature and the judiciary is a basic structure which cannot be changed by altering the Constitution.

Mr Calvin Liang, of Tan Kok Quan Partnership, and Ms Sarah Shi, of the Attorney-General's Chambers (AGC), write in the current issue of The Law Society's Law Gazette that recent cases have shown courts are beginning to recognise this basic structure.

They said: "The basic structure doctrine posits that a Constitution has certain written and unwritten features so fundamental that they cannot be abrogated through constitutional amendments."

Ms Shi, an Oxford University graduate, said the article, The Constitution Of Our Constitution: A Vindication Of The Basic Structure Doctrine, reflected her personal views and not the AGC's.

The elected presidency was raised in Parliament in May when an MP suggested scrapping the post and returning the role to its original ceremonial position as head of state.

The post was created when Singapore became independent in 1965. The president was chosen by Parliament but the role became an elected office with key powers, following amendments to the Constitution in 1991.

It has been argued that what Parliament gave, Parliament can take back.

But the authors point out that this confuses the issue of whether the basic structure can be changed as a matter of political reality with whether it would be lawful to abolish such a power.

They added: "More fundamentally, the basic structure is not tied to the source of the Constitution but to its core function as a power-limiting device."

The authors argue that the basic structure is implied and arises from the very nature of a Constitution and not by decree from the legislature or the courts.

They point out that the basic structure doctrine was expressly rejected by the High Court when first raised in a constitutional court case in 1989.

However, they cite a recent string of cases in which the courts have begun to recognise it.

These include Tan Eng Hong's bid for a judicial review of the constitutionality of section 377A of the Penal Code, seen as an anti- gay law, and the bid by Madam Vellama Marie Muthu for a court ruling on the prime minister's discretion on when to call a by-election when a seat falls vacant.

In addition, then Chief Justice Chan Sek Keong recognised this basic structure as part of the Singapore Constitution in the course of dealing with the case of Mohammad Faizal Sabtu, a convicted drug offender, in 2012.

Mohammad Faizal raised the question of law as to whether Parliament intruded into judicial power and violated the principle of separation of powers by requiring the court to impose a mandatory minimum sentence for a drug offence.

In addressing the question, the court looked at the Singapore constitutional framework, which is based on the British model. This accepts that a Constitution is based on certain unwritten basic principles, such as the separation of powers.

In effect, this means any move to abolish the elected presidency by constitutional change, even if supported by a referendum, could run into basic structure objections as it may "fundamentally alter the separation of powers".

[email protected]
- See more at: http://news.asiaone.com/news/singapore/ending-elected-presidency-may-not-work#sthash.ERY9r9Qx.dpuf
 

winnipegjets

Alfrescian (Inf)
Asset
Such stupid argument ...to suggest that Parliament cannot change the Presidency.

So, they are arguing that Parliament can't change anything. We are stuck with elected presidency forever. How is that ever possible?

Aside, what separation of powers is there in sinkapore?
 

Satyr

Alfrescian
Loyal
Such stupid argument ...to suggest that Parliament cannot change the Presidency.

So, they are arguing that Parliament can't change anything. We are stuck with elected presidency forever. How is that ever possible?

Aside, what separation of powers is there in sinkapore?

I believe parliament can do it but the court may declare it unconstitutional .
By the way , this argument is needed in the event the current opposition forms a majority
As long as the pap is in power the EP will be their man. Count on it.
 

borom

Alfrescian (Inf)
Asset
The idea behind separation and more appropriately balance of power is good BUT the elected President need to be elected by the majority of singaporeans (more than 50%) and be really independent with no links at all to any political party.

All members and previous members of any political parties should be barred from the office.

The tenure must be limited to 2 terms.
 

Bigfuck

Alfrescian (Inf)
Asset
It is a kangaroo court here that does not recognize commonwealth law but yet attempts to pretend to practice it. Strike SGP from the commonwealth and all is settled.
 

OverTheCounter

Alfrescian (InfP)
Generous Asset
Of course the ST would publish such an article. The PAP has no intention of ending the elected presidency.

The article is essentially a back-handed way of slapping Denise Phua and reminder her to toe the party line.
 

rusty

Alfrescian (Inf)
Asset
Who ever thought that men will go to the moon...... and they did.
Who ever thought hearts could be changed.... and so many got transplanted.
When a new party is in power and appoint their own edition, PAP will clamour.
Nothing is static or permanent except death.
 

mojito

Alfrescian
Loyal
Such stupid argument ...to suggest that Parliament cannot change the Presidency.

So, they are arguing that Parliament can't change anything. We are stuck with elected presidency forever. How is that ever possible?

Aside, what separation of powers is there in sinkapore?

Of course there is separation of powers. Loong runs the government and Ching runs the state owned businesses. A truly harmonious union. Separate yet together. Marvelous!
 

eatshitndie

Alfrescian (Inf)
Asset
Of course there is separation of powers. Loong runs the government and Ching runs the state owned businesses. A truly harmonious union. Separate yet together. Marvelous!

although they share the same bedroom, there's separation of legs somewhat. and i doubt there's any coital conference culminating in cum at this stage. :o

image.jpg
 

tanwahtiu

Alfrescian
Loyal
Now there are >1 million new citizens and are not daft to see PAP shits here and there. They are not from countries living in kampong lifestyle but strong in getting rid of bad government in their own country.

If FTs form alternate Party a new game has just began. If Pinoys form a all Pinoys party the show has just began.




Such stupid argument ...to suggest that Parliament cannot change the Presidency.

So, they are arguing that Parliament can't change anything. We are stuck with elected presidency forever. How is that ever possible?

Aside, what separation of powers is there in sinkapore?
 
Top