Constitution Requires Government to Hold a Referendum on 6.9 million!

[Rumpole]

Referendum! There have been calls on the Internet for a referendum for citizens to either endorse or reject the population target of 6.9 million stated in the Government’s White Paper.

If the Government refuses to hold a referendum, can ordinary citizens challenge it?

YES.

The Constitution of the Republic of Singapore makes it mandatory to conduct a referendum in only one situation – surrender, transfer or relinquishment of sovereignty by way of merger, incorporation or in any other manner whatsoever.

Article 6 provides that:

(1) There shall be —

(a) no surrender or transfer, either wholly or in part, of the sovereignty of the Republic of Singapore as an independent nation, whether by way of merger or incorporation with any other sovereign state or with any Federation, Confederation, country or territory or in any other manner whatsoever; and

(b) no relinquishment of control over the Singapore Police Force or the Singapore Armed Forces,

unless such surrender, transfer or relinquishment has been supported, at a national referendum, by not less than two-thirds of the total number of votes cast by the electors registered under the Parliamentary Elections Act (Cap 218).

http://statutes.agc.gov.sg/aol/sear...ansactionTime:01/07/1999 Status:inforce;rec=0

The argument will be that an immigration policy which if implemented will result in the resident population comprising of only 55% native Singaporeans is tantamount to a surrender or relinquishment of the sovereignty of the Republic of Singapore as an independent nation.

Should the Government not accept this position and refuses to hold a referendum, any concerned citizen may take it to Court just as the cleaning lady did over a mere by-election. Will Singaporeans start a fund raising exercise to build up a war chest to challenge the Government on this and other Constitutional issues? Can Singaporeans rise up to the challenge and force the Government to hold the referendum that is required by law?

Speak now or forever hold your peace!

Rumpole of the Bailey

* Rumpole is the main character in a British TV series about an ageing London barrister who defends any and all clients (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rumpole_of_the_Bailey for more info). The author, who is an NUS law grad living and working abroad, chose this moniker to encourage an interest in legal issues because it does not just affect lawyers and their clients. The everyday layman needs to be informed of his rights and obligations and in the context of the “Little Red Dot” to avoid being talked down to or misled by their highly paid Ministers, including those that don’t have any portfolio, or civil servants with bad attitude and poor knowledge of the laws which they are supposed to be enforcing.

 

[mojito]

Aiyo! Referendum is trending. Not my fault hor.

 

[wwabbit]

Good luck finding a judge that won't dismiss your case. That's some serious convoluted and twisted interpretation of the constitution, even worse than KJ and TKL's interpretation regarding the granting of the IMF loan.

 

[watchman8]

No point doing referendum. Old man will twist the referendum questions to be such that there is no choice but to accept his decision. Just look at 1962 referendum on union with Malaysia.

The Singapore National Referendum of 1962, or also commonly referred to as the Merger Referendum of Singapore was the first and only referendum to date held in Singapore on September 1, 1962. It called for people to vote on the terms of merger with Malaysia. Some of the options ultimately had to deal with questions of national identity, and such questions would come to be cited even years after the merger, as well as after the subsequent separation.

There was no option to vote against the merger among the three options presented to the people (ironically, separation is exactly what would happen three years later):

Option A: All Singapore citizens would automatically become citizens of Malaysia, and Singapore would retain a degree of autonomy and state power, such as over labour and education. Singapore would also get to keep its language policies, such as to retain using all four major languages, English, Mandarin, Malay and Tamil.

Option B: Singapore would become a federal state like that of the other eleven states, with no more autonomy than the other states would, thus ceding control over issues such as labour and education policies to the federal government in Kuala Lumpur. This also meant that there would be less multilingualism - only English and Malay would be used for official purposes, and possibly education. Only those born in Singapore or descended from the Singapore-born would become citizens of Malaysia. There would also be proportionate representation in Parliament from Singapore.

Option C: Singapore would enter on terms no less favourable than the Borneo territories, Sabah and Sarawak, both of whom were also discussing merger with Malaysia. This was to ensure that Malaysia would not discriminate along racial lines, as that would mean discriminating against Sabah and Sarawak, which were predominantly Bumiputra as well.

 

[Rumpole]

Good luck finding a judge that won't dismiss your case.

Typical SINKIE loser mentality. If Madam V had this mentality, she would not have challenged your PeeM on the by-election issue. Even though the High Court ruled against her on the question of whether or not your PeeM has absolute discretion in calling one, a by-election was called not for legal but political reasons. The backlash if one is not called within reasonable time is too high. This is proved again, when the Palmer saga led to a by-election within a very short time, even if your PeeM continues to hang on to his fiction that he has "absolute discretion".

Same goes for other cases including the 6.9 million question.

That's some serious convoluted and twisted interpretation of the constitution, even worse than KJ and TKL's interpretation regarding the granting of the IMF loan.

If a layman would regard this as a surrender or relinquishment of sovereignty in "any other manner whatsoever", then there's absolutely nothing convoluted or twisted about this interpretation.

Neither is there any thing twisted or convoluted about KJ's interpretation on the IMF commitment. In fact, Malaysians Chan Sek Keong's and Tan Lee Meng's interpretation are even more twisted and convoluted. You obviously have read the Shit Times too literally and without exercising your critical faculties or understanding the difference between an asset and a contingent liability. You may read this link to a TRE article and my replies there for clarification.

http://www.tremeritus.com/2012/10/25/high-court-dismisses-kjs-bid-to-stop-govt-us4b-loan-to-imf/

In any case, please PM me or start a new thread if you wish to discuss the commitment to make an IMF loan. This thread is about a referendum on the 6.9 million question and nothing else.

Cheers.

 

[Rumpole]

No point doing referendum. Old man will twist the referendum questions to be such that there is no choice but to accept his decision. Just look at 1962 referendum on union with Malaysia.

Old man was dealing with a different kind of population. Now, with so many Sinkies being graduates, they should be able to also insist that the referendum questions be properly framed into simple yes or no. If they dont' have the balls to do that, then they have to live with the consequences of their ball-less-ness.

 

[ThePimp]

This government has been pimping sinkies for so many years, sinkies had lost all power to do anything now because they do not know what their rights are.

 

[wwabbit]

Typical SINKIE loser mentality. If Madam V had this mentality, she would not have challenged your PeeM on the by-election issue. Even though the High Court ruled against her on the question of whether or not your PeeM has absolute discretion in calling one, a by-election was called not for legal but political reasons. The backlash if one is not called within reasonable time is too high. This is proved again, when the Palmer saga led to a by-election within a very short time, even if your PeeM continues to hang on to his fiction that he has "absolute discretion".

Same goes for other cases including the 6.9 million question.

If a layman would regard this as a surrender or relinquishment of sovereignty in "any other manner whatsoever", then there's absolutely nothing convoluted or twisted about this interpretation.

Don't try to compare this with the By Election case. The By Election case had some merit, and it all comes down to the meaning of the term "shall". Your case will have zero merit because you will have to change the meaning of the word "sovereignty" in order to have a case at all.

Neither is there any thing twisted or convoluted about KJ's interpretation on the IMF commitment. In fact, Malaysians Chan Sek Keong's and Tan Lee Meng's interpretation are even more twisted and convoluted. You obviously have read the Shit Times too literally and without exercising your critical faculties or understanding the difference between an asset and a contingent liability. You may read this link to a TRE article and my replies there for clarification.

http://www.tremeritus.com/2012/10/25/high-court-dismisses-kjs-bid-to-stop-govt-us4b-loan-to-imf/

The AGC and Judge's interpretation of Article 144, however badly it was written, is correct. If you have familiarity with constitutional law (and if you are not M Ravi), you would know that whenever there is ambiguity in the Constitution, then it is the intent of the lawmakers that will be in force. Generally, this will require looking through Hansard for the records of the reading of the bill. In this case, my quick research showed that the article probably originated from India... I'd imagine there might be quite some fun looking through 18th century Indian parliamentary records for those! In any case, if we look at TKL/KJ/M.Ravi's interpretation of the article. That would mean that the government will need to obtain approval in order to

1. Receive loans
2. Give loans
3. Receive guarantees
4. Give guarantees

Restricting #3 completely makes no sense. #2 also makes little sense - it basically means the government cannot make any investment at all without involving the President. I think it is fair enough to assume that the intention of the article has been to restrict only #1 and #4

It is fairly obvious to me that KJ is fighting this just for the publicity. I think he knows he doesn't really have a case - that's why he has been asking for contributions from idiots he can con to fight this case instead of putting up his own money. And the only lawyer he can find to take up this case is M Ravi? That doesn't speak well about the merits of the case.

But really, I shouldn't expect anything from a clown with 1.2% of the votes.

 

[watchman8]

Old man was dealing with a different kind of population. Now, with so many Sinkies being graduates, they should be able to also insist that the referendum questions be properly framed into simple yes or no. If they dont' have the balls to do that, then they have to live with the consequences of their ball-less-ness.

1962 was the generation that went through WW2 japanese occupation and the workers riots in the 1950s. So if LKY can shaft it to them in a referendum, then what hope of today's generation?

The solution is at the next GE, and not the referendum.

 

[Rumpole]

1962 was the generation that went through WW2 japanese occupation and the workers riots in the 1950s. So if LKY can shaft it to them in a referendum, then what hope of today's generation?

The solution is at the next GE, and not the referendum.

Thanks for the valuable insight.

Only heard about the Japanese occupation and it is usually at the end of a meal when as a kid had to be coaxed into finishing the last few mouthfuls of rice. No riots occurred in SG in my lifetime.

Those who can't wait for or not sure which way things will swing in 2016 would do well to start clocking time in their new country for PR or citizenship purposes.

 

[Rumpole]

Don't try to compare this with the By Election case. The By Election case had some merit, and it all comes down to the meaning of the term "shall". Your case will have zero merit because you will have to change the meaning of the word "sovereignty" in order to have a case at all.

If I recall correctly, sovereignty is not defined in the Constitution. So it is open to interpretation and there obviously is no local precedent. They should test it in court, even if the chances of success are uncertain, what with the appointment of judges being made by the PM with no independent appointments committee.

You have missed the point about the by-election. It's not about the merits of the case from the legal angle, but the mere fact that the Government has been challenged and the psychological impact it has on the electorate. During the time it takes for the case to be tried, there will be media exposure, people will think and ask difficult questions, etc. All these have political implications. When the PM held a by-election, he yielded not to the judge or the words of the statute or the Hansard. He yielded to the cost in terms of votes.

 

[Rumpole]

The solution is at the next GE, and not the referendum.

It does not have to be either GE or referendum. We can have both.

Even an unsuccessful legal challenge on the question of whether one needs to be held can have impact on the next GE. Voters may be swayed by the fact that the Govt so "chao kuan ah, so important issue also don't hold referendum". In the course of the legal challenge, they will use their dirty tricks as usual and in this new age of the Internet, word will spread and more and more voters will become pissed off with them and vote accordingly in 2016. It is a war for the swing votes and the referendum or legal challenge to hold one is just one of several strategic battles. Perfectly feasible for several battles to be "lost" but the war be won and the PAP thrown into the dustbin of history.

 

[eatshitndie]

it will not work. when foreigners are "naturalized", they effectively and constitutionally become citizens of sg. there is no "surrender" or "transfer" if the sovereignty of sg is still within the confines of a citizenry with the right to vote, whether that citizenry comprises natives, sg-born, naturalized or once-upon-a-time foreigners who have sworn their oath of allegiance when taking up sg citizenship according to the articles of constitution. a citizen is a citizen. period. unless there are articles in the constitution forbidding foreign-born citizens from holding high office. but that is a different matter altogether.

 

[byleftcan]

Prof Tey is back!

 

[wwabbit]

If I recall correctly, sovereignty is not defined in the Constitution. So it is open to interpretation and there obviously is no local precedent. They should test it in court, even if the chances of success are uncertain, what with the appointment of judges being made by the PM with no independent appointments committee.

Sovereignty is defined the English dictionary, which you should probably look up, because it is pretty obvious you don't know what it means exactly.

You have missed the point about the by-election. It's not about the merits of the case from the legal angle, but the mere fact that the Government has been challenged and the psychological impact it has on the electorate. During the time it takes for the case to be tried, there will be media exposure, people will think and ask difficult questions, etc. All these have political implications. When the PM held a by-election, he yielded not to the judge or the words of the statute or the Hansard. He yielded to the cost in terms of votes.

That's all speculation. We have no way to know if the BE would be called or not without the suit.

 

[steffychun]

Referendum! There have been calls on the Internet for a referendum for citizens to either endorse or reject the population target of 6.9 million stated in the Government’s White Paper.

If the Government refuses to hold a referendum, can ordinary citizens challenge it?

YES.

The Constitution of the Republic of Singapore makes it mandatory to conduct a referendum in only one situation – surrender, transfer or relinquishment of sovereignty by way of merger, incorporation or in any other manner whatsoever.

Article 6 provides that:

(1) There shall be —

(a) no surrender or transfer, either wholly or in part, of the sovereignty of the Republic of Singapore as an independent nation, whether by way of merger or incorporation with any other sovereign state or with any Federation, Confederation, country or territory or in any other manner whatsoever; and

(b) no relinquishment of control over the Singapore Police Force or the Singapore Armed Forces,

unless such surrender, transfer or relinquishment has been supported, at a national referendum, by not less than two-thirds of the total number of votes cast by the electors registered under the Parliamentary Elections Act (Cap 218).

http://statutes.agc.gov.sg/aol/sear...ansactionTime:01/07/1999 Status:inforce;rec=0

The argument will be that an immigration policy which if implemented will result in the resident population comprising of only 55% native Singaporeans is tantamount to a surrender or relinquishment of the sovereignty of the Republic of Singapore as an independent nation.

Should the Government not accept this position and refuses to hold a referendum, any concerned citizen may take it to Court just as the cleaning lady did over a mere by-election. Will Singaporeans start a fund raising exercise to build up a war chest to challenge the Government on this and other Constitutional issues? Can Singaporeans rise up to the challenge and force the Government to hold the referendum that is required by law?

Speak now or forever hold your peace!

Rumpole of the Bailey

* Rumpole is the main character in a British TV series about an ageing London barrister who defends any and all clients (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rumpole_of_the_Bailey for more info). The author, who is an NUS law grad living and working abroad, chose this moniker to encourage an interest in legal issues because it does not just affect lawyers and their clients. The everyday layman needs to be informed of his rights and obligations and in the context of the “Little Red Dot” to avoid being talked down to or misled by their highly paid Ministers, including those that don’t have any portfolio, or civil servants with bad attitude and poor knowledge of the laws which they are supposed to be enforcing.

The constitution is interpreted by the Chief Justice who is a friend of the PM

 

[Rumpole]

Sovereignty is defined the English dictionary, which you should probably look up, because it is pretty obvious you don't know what it means exactly.



That's all speculation. We have no way to know if the BE would be called or not without the suit.

You obviously have no idea what statutory interpretation involves. Try telling a judge "we should only use the dictionary and nothing else to interpret all our written laws" and he will laugh at you. Benions on Statutory Interpretation is the bible on this topic and used by judges throughout the Commonwealth. Just google it. Past editions are even available free for download in PDF form.

It's NOT speculation. You are displaying selective memory. Your PeeM said clearly that he had absolute discretion in whether or not to call a BE and in his opinion it is not necessary as he wants to focus on other problems. Dragged his feet even as the suit progressed and suddenly decides to call one. And the nomination day was same as the hearing of the suit! Some kind of coincidence! Ground sentiment was overwhelmingly in favour of a BE - that is a fact. The suit brought this sentiment into sharp focus. He would be a foolish PeeM indeed if ground sentiment did not feature prominently in his decision making process. Same logic applies here. Whether the PeeM factors in ground sentiment or not is not the point nor whether or not the suit will succeed in courts filled with friendly judges. The point is to bring this issue into sharp focus and move ground sentiment decisively against the Fascist Party.

 

[Rumpole]

it will not work. when foreigners are "naturalized", they effectively and constitutionally become citizens of sg. there is no "surrender" or "transfer" if the sovereignty of sg is still within the confines of a citizenry with the right to vote, whether that citizenry comprises natives, sg-born, naturalized or once-upon-a-time foreigners who have sworn their oath of allegiance when taking up sg citizenship according to the articles of constitution. a citizen is a citizen. period. unless there are articles in the constitution forbidding foreign-born citizens from holding high office. but that is a different matter altogether.

The focus is not on each naturalised citizen's status but on the POLICY of granting citizenship on a massive scale such that the effect will be that current citizens become a much smaller proportion of the total voting population. It is the policy itself that is being challenged as unconstitutional unless approved by a referendum and not the status or rights of a naturalised citizen.

 

[eatshitndie]

The focus is not on each naturalised citizen's status but on the POLICY of granting citizenship on a massive scale such that the effect will be that current citizens become a much smaller proportion of the total voting population. It is the policy itself that is being challenged as unconstitutional unless approved by a referendum and not the status or rights of a naturalised citizen.

is there a constitutional barrier or caveat that prevents a super majority in parliament to enact laws (including policies that the new laws support) that will lead to what you describe above? i think not. if the sg parliament decides today that sg will be the 51st state of america with approval from congress and no vetoing by potus, what is there to stop the current super majority? the super majority is the voice, policy maker and law enactor of any referendum. and that includes giving the cuntry away.

 

[watchman8]

It does not have to be either GE or referendum. We can have both.

Even an unsuccessful legal challenge on the question of whether one needs to be held can have impact on the next GE. Voters may be swayed by the fact that the Govt so "chao kuan ah, so important issue also don't hold referendum". In the course of the legal challenge, they will use their dirty tricks as usual and in this new age of the Internet, word will spread and more and more voters will become pissed off with them and vote accordingly in 2016. It is a war for the swing votes and the referendum or legal challenge to hold one is just one of several strategic battles. Perfectly feasible for several battles to be "lost" but the war be won and the PAP thrown into the dustbin of history.

A referendum will allow old man to play his tricks and make it appear as if majority agrees to the white paper. the anger is diluted.

Better to focus all the angst and unhappiness in the GE vote.