Constitution Requires Government to Hold a Referendum on 6.9 million!

[Leongsam]

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.

In Singapore, Judges are all powerful to the point where they can redefine the laws of Physics. In Singapore, standing in the centre of a 200m circle does not mean you are within that circle.

I challenge any other judge in the world to be able to rewrite the laws that made the universe what it is today.

 

[mojito]

In Singapore, Judges are all powerful to the point where they can redefine the laws of Physics. In Singapore, standing in the centre of a 200m circle does not mean you are within that circle.

I challenge any other judge in the world to be able to rewrite the laws that made the universe what it is today.

Malaysians and ex-malaysians make excellent goons.

 

[GOD IS MY DOG]

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.

then Lee Kill You didn't go against Constitution liao.......................it never say there shall not be a surrender to a Family or an Individual mah..............

 

[eatshitndie]

In Singapore, Judges are all powerful to the point where they can redefine the laws of Physics. In Singapore, standing in the centre of a 200m circle does not mean you are within that circle.

I challenge any other judge in the world to be able to rewrite the laws that made the universe what it is today.

this break-through concept and methodology was patented by sg in the universal patent office. it was also submitted to the nobel committee but was rejected for being too extra-ordinary and ahead of its time. it's otherwise known as the law of virtual inclusive exclusion: once you're in, you're virtually outside the exclusion zone. silicon valley is trying to use the out-of-this-world concept to fabricate the next wonder chip.

 

[wwabbit]

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.

Statutory Interpretation in this case would be going back to the time when the Article was written into the Constitution, and determining the intention and meaning of the word at that point of time. That can possibly mean looking for a dictionary from the early 1800s or 1700s from the East Indies.

But since you are the one asserting that the meaning of "sovereignty" means that we lose our sovereignty by allowing more foreigners in, you are the one who should be providing the proof that the Statutory Interpretation of that word supports your assertion.

 

[kukubird58]

In Singapore, Judges are all powerful to the point where they can redefine the laws of Physics. In Singapore, standing in the centre of a 200m circle does not mean you are within that circle.
I challenge any other judge in the world to be able to rewrite the laws that made the universe what it is today.

hahaha.....u twit, in this case, the centre of the circle is not a dot but a smaller circle.
anyway, this thing cuts both way.....opps party can use this precedence to do the same thing....

 

[Dreamer1]

In Singapore, Judges are all powerful to the point where they can redefine the laws of Physics. In Singapore, standing in the centre of a 200m circle does not mean you are within that circle.

I challenge any other judge in the world to be able to rewrite the laws that made the universe what it is today.

Boss Sam,I do not think so,almost all Ministers have distinctions in "Physics"in their GEC "A",I can confirm,they follow the same laws as Newton,but when they deal with very stupid people,their laws automatically adjusted to suit them,that is called "POLITICS" not their fault,really,cheers

 

[kingrant]

hahaha.....u twit, in this case, the centre of the circle is not a dot but a smaller circle.
anyway, this thing cuts both way.....opps party can use this precedence to do the same thing....

This is the kind of crap we have to take from damaged bird brains.

 

[Sinkie]

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.

If the country is given away just like that, I can assure you there will be a civil war.

 

[ray_of_hope]

Aiyo! Referendum is trending. Not my fault hor.

TJS was trending back in Aug 2011, and we saw how that turned out.

 

[eatshitndie]

If the country is given away just like that, I can assure you there will be a civil war.

don't bet on it. the only trigger that will cause sinkies to go berserk is the shutdown of all hawker centers and food courts. :p

apparently, my 51st state joke has taken on its own life in the sg blogosphere, including a satirical proposal to make this joke a referendum.

 

[ChaoPappyPoodle]

What no one has looked at or asked is if the PAPzis have promised jobs or access here to nationals of foreign countries who have free trade agreements with us. It is a known fact that that PAPzis have promised Indian, China and Philippine governments that a number of their citizens are to have access to jobs here as part of FTA agreements.

Can someone who knows an oppo MP or NCMP please forward this important information to them so that this can be asked in parliament.

 

[andyfisher]

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.

 

[Strich]

this whole thing in my opinion is like selling the country.....(reverse takeover)...what this means is
Singapore remains in name....but the owners(real singaporeans) change to (New Citizens), the original population become minority share holders....
if this is not selling out the country ...i dun know what this is

 

[Rumpole]

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.

Yes, the constitutional barrier is Article 6. Please see the original post for the text.

Becoming the 51st state of the US of A is clearly a transfer of sovereignty and requires approval by a two thirds majority of eligible voters in a referendum. This means that even if Parliament voted by two thirds majority to become the 51st state, the decision cannot be implemented unless a referendum is called and two thirds of eligible VOTERS (not Parliamentarians) are in favour.

 

[Rumpole]

Statutory Interpretation in this case would be going back to the time when the Article was written into the Constitution, and determining the intention and meaning of the word at that point of time. That can possibly mean looking for a dictionary from the early 1800s or 1700s from the East Indies.

But since you are the one asserting that the meaning of "sovereignty" means that we lose our sovereignty by allowing more foreigners in, you are the one who should be providing the proof that the Statutory Interpretation of that word supports your assertion.

There are many theories of Constitutional Interpretation, just google it.

This link will give you some ideas of the various methods: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicial_interpretation

Nobody gives a damn about dictionaries from 18th or 19th centuries. The SG Constitution was written in 1960s and that is about as far back as we need to go as far as dictionaries are concerned.

You should be aware that the meaning of words evolve over time. In my primary school days "gay" means happy. When I was in secondary school, an expat teacher told me that the word "gay" has evolved to mean homosexual. The drafters of the SG Constitution in the 1960s being the pragmatic people that they were must be presumed to have intended the words used in that very important document to bear the meaning that they did at the time it was written (even if they copied it from other countries' Constitutions). That is assuming one is using a conservative method of Constitutional Intepretation. If one prefers the "living document" method of interpretation (see link for description), then the question may become what is the meaning of a word in the present context regardless of what it meant at the time the Constitution was written.

 

[eatshitndie]

Yes, the constitutional barrier is Article 6. Please see the original post for the text.

Becoming the 51st state of the US of A is clearly a transfer of sovereignty and requires approval by a two thirds majority of eligible voters in a referendum. This means that even if Parliament voted by two thirds majority to become the 51st state, the decision cannot be implemented unless a referendum is called and two thirds of eligible VOTERS (not Parliamentarians) are in favour.

can parliament change statutes in the constitution by amending or repealing article 6? if yes, that's the beauty and the beast of having a super majority by representative governance.

 

[Rumpole]

can parliament change statutes in the constitution by amending or repealing article 6? if yes, that's the beauty and the beast of having a super majority by representative governance.

Good question. Part III of the Constitution (comprising of Articles 6 to 8) deals with "Protection of the Sovereignty of the Republic of Singapore". Article 8 explicitly states:

8.—(1) A Bill for making an amendment to this Part shall not be passed by Parliament unless it 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).

(2) In this Article, “amendment”includes addition and repeal.

In other words, any attempt to modify or repeal Article 6 will also require a national referendum at which at least two-thirds of voters support the proposed change. Our Constitution has at least one limit on the abuse of representative governance. It's up to Sinkies whether to invoke Part III of the Constitution and force the PAPzies to hold a referendum or lose big time in the next GE.

 

[FredTan76]

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

 

[wwabbit]

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.