Constitution Requires Government to Hold a Referendum on 6.9 million!

[Rumpole]

There's no such statutes that require e gov e call for a referendum.
KPKB for fug?
59.96% of u all voted for PAP

You are either ignorant or a PAP IB. This is the link to Part III of the Constitution from Statutes Online, part of the official website of the Attorney General's Chambers.

http://statutes.agc.gov.sg/aol/sear...onstitutional%20Documents;type=actsAll#P1III-.

 

[Rumpole]

The government is required to call for a referendum to give up the sovereignty of Singapore.
The problem here is, despite all the rubbish posted by Rumpole so far, he has failed to show that allowing in more foreigners is the same thing as giving up our sovereignty, by any accepted definition of the word sovereignty.

'Allo Mister Wabbit, you obviously are an IB - either for Team A or Team B. You have not even tried to rebut any of the points raised in my posts in this thread. Instead you chose the PAP IB route of making bold assertions without any supporting arguments.

Please do not assume that I am replying to you. No, I am writing for the benefit of the concerned bystander and don't a damn what the hell you think.

If a significant segment of the voting public believes that a referendum is required for such a major policy than not holding it will cost the PAP dearly at the next GE or even cause it to be finished politically - generations of Sinkies will remember this sin. This regardless of the legal position. You do know what is difference, do you? And in any case the legal position is arguable and that is all that is required for a judge to hear the case.

You are not even half as smart as the Wabbit of Disney fame. Me thinks you are more like Elmer, but I'll leave it for the bystander to judge. Cheers!

[video=youtube;QQcccIfy7mE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QQcccIfy7mE[/video]

 

[wwabbit]

LOL, right, I'm a PAP IB, is that the best argument you can come up with? Anyone can go through my post history and see that I write in support of good arguments made against the PAP, but I will call out the idiots that make stupid and terrible arguments against the PAP. And do you know what that is? That's because it is idiots like you making up stupid shit that give opposition supporters a bad name.

Your initial statement that "Constitution Requires Government to Hold a Referendum on 6.9 million!" has been shown to be completely false. So what you are now saying is that it doesn't matter if legally they are required to hold a referendum anymore what matters is how many idiots you managed to convince with your lie.

 

[Rumpole]

LOL, right, I'm a PAP IB, is that the best argument you can come up with? Anyone can go through my post history and see that I write in support of good arguments made against the PAP, but I will call out the idiots that make stupid and terrible arguments against the PAP. And do you know what that is? That's because it is idiots like you making up stupid shit that give opposition supporters a bad name.

Your initial statement that "Constitution Requires Government to Hold a Referendum on 6.9 million!" has been shown to be completely false. So what you are now saying is that it doesn't matter if legally they are required to hold a referendum anymore what matters is how many idiots you managed to convince with your lie.

This latest post of yours confirms you are a dumb ass whose IQ is as low as Doc Elmer. My opinion is that the "Constitution Requires Govt to Hold a Referendum on 6.9 million!" and I stand by that. I have also given a dumb ass Wabbit a link to the various methods of Constitutional Interpretation, at least some of which will support my contention. All a dumb ass Wabbit can come up with is a laughable attempt to ask people to check ancient dictionaries! Have you even read the link I provided not for you but for concerned bystanders? Too cheem for your Doc Elmer IQ?

Too cheem for you to understand that litigation for a referendum is a political as well as a legal tool? My God, you truly have the IQ of a Doctor Elmer regardless of whether you're Team A or B or just an ignoramus!

Why are you so afraid or against litigation to test out this issue? Because you love to mingle in the same filthy pool as 6.9 million of which 45 percent are instant citizens? Because your masters can't guarantee a favourable outcome especially since DJ Siva has proved to be unco-operative? Because you are a Sinkie whose definition of success is narrow and anything not guaranteed to succeed in your myopic vision is not worth attempting? Well, I don't give a damn what you think!

If Sinkies want a referendum on this 6.9 million question they should stand up and demand it and be prepared to take the PAP Govt to court if it refuses. And this is directed at the concerned bystander, not you. I don't give two hoots what a Doc Elmer masquerading as a Wabbit thinks though I happen to like Rabbit Steak - it is a French specialty!

 

[wwabbit]

Lol, so why aren't you yourself taking the Government to court, if you are so sure you are right?
I think it's fairly obvious to most of us here that you are just full of shit and you know it, and you are just trying to find other idiots to be martyr instead of sticking your own neck out.

 

[Rumpole]

Lol, so why aren't you yourself taking the Government to court, if you are so sure you are right?
I think it's fairly obvious to most of us here that you are just full of shit and you know it, and you are just trying to find other idiots to be martyr instead of sticking your own neck out.

I don't give a damn what you think and you only have the right to speak for yourself and not "most of us". Does your "us" include the 3,000 who were at Hong Lim Park this afternoon?

Me don't needs your permission to do or not do anything just as nobody should give a fark whether a dumb ass Elmer Fudd claiming to be a smart Wabbit understands the difference between an asset and a contingent liability.

This thread is to inspire the 3,000 or so lawyers that are still in Sinkieland and like minded people. They may or may not take it up. The citizens of the FIRST WORLD country that I am already living in will have no hesitation at all.

Before you make a further fool of yourself, I suggest you read this link and acquaint yourself with the various methods of Constitutional Interpretation: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicial_interpretation

Oh by the way, your IQ may also be similar to that of the duck shown in this video. Quack, quack ...

[video=youtube;mLW963ewcq8]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mLW963ewcq8[/video]

 

[Rumpole]

From another thread:

Quite self-explanatory:

The white poster says "We demand REFERENDUM on PWP". Yes!

To protect the innocent, I have to clarify that Rumpole is not the uncle wearing striped polo shirt. :p

 

[WongMengMeng]

your logic is not just cheem it is super cheem.

good luck with this, any two bit lawyer worth his pubic hair can poke so many holes in this, it will make you look like a urine mei mei who just serviced a hundred banglas.

I always thought that you and zis Rodyk bugger have something in common - both of you are my cheapskate master's IB.

'Allo, you from PRC ah. Any or how shit and urine wherever you like ah. Zis is XIN JIA PO OK?

Any legal issues too cheem for you for that Wabbit, er I mean Duck, who I suspect is also master's servant or serpent like you and me, please consult SPH in-house law-yah. I not very free ah, cannot be on call 24X7 like other IBs, but as SC, I can tell you that what this Rumpole has written here has much merit. If I were a judge and had some spine, I might rule that if the drafters of the Constitution had thought about this question of whether a policy to grant citizenship to large numbers of immigrants to the extent that in 17 years' time Sinkies will only constitute half of the resident population they would regard such conduct as a surrender of sovereignty.

Hmmm ....... zis Rumpole Fatso must have at least a 2nd class upper from NUS, may even have won some academic prizes. Hehehe, an excuse for me to ask for a bigger budget to find zis fella and lock him up in IMH.

Please leave this Fatso in Horse Hair Wig to me. With people like you and that fella with a pair of breasts as his avatar, no wonder I have problems ferreting out this Rumpole Fatso to serve him up to the highly qualified doctors at IMH who will sign anything that master asks them to.

 

[kukubird58]

hahaha....again a lot of hot air and allegations.......
according to the white-paper, singapore will take in estimated 15,000 to 25,000 new citizen each year up to 2030 (subject to regular reviews).
The estimated total increase in new citizen over this period will then be 425,000 at the top end of estimates...
how will this result in Singapore giving up its sovereignty????