Verdict : Singapore Constitution Isn't that Democratic

[lockeliberal]

Dear Scroobal,

Principled Politicians and Politicians about democratic principles with a bee in his bonnet best sums up the article by GMS.

a. A constitution is made democratic by practise, politicians in their actions and political parties. I remember in comparative politics when I was a student that the most democratic constitution on the face of the earth was that of the dear defunct USSR and we know how that worked in practise.

b. The UK does not have a constitution but is it any more democratic ? The powers and the discretion of the PM there has evolved through practise non partisanship and by political parties defending something greater than the rights of each party.


c. It is practise by convention which is under debate here and not some hyperbole claim that a constitution is less or more democratic.


d. Now it is clear that the PAP has used convention and unfettered discretion in the case of Anson to wipe the opposition from the face of the earth. That said and done would the same hold true for the PAP today ? I seriously doubt that LHL could pull an LKY in todays political climate.

e. Parliamentary elections are about parties, by elections about persons. The UK and Malaysia allows party switching by members, Singapore does not. That is a difference in democratic practise but is it a difference in democracy as in non democratic and democratic

f. At the end of the day it all boils down to what or how far a PM or a PAP PM will allow himself to be seen to be be favouring his party over democratic principles, but in itself if the disgression is abused as in the past , it will come to haunt the PAP if it does an Anson. That discretion is not undemocratic, but in the context of an evolving democracy we will see how it works



Locke

The Judiciary is not allowed to override parliament no matter how unfair the legislation is. The principle of separation is important and prevents one key state institution does not undermine another. As TFBH pointed earlier that it was changed to address an issue of that time. There are other controls such as you cannot be an MP if you are expelled by your party.

I am amazed that after 2 elections and one as leader of the party with the largest number of candidates, he was not aware of Singapore referred by such endearing terms such as benevolent dictatorship, authoritarian government, tyrannical regime etc. No foreigner has ever defined Singapore as a democracy.

The only reason the PAP held a by elections was to stop whatever goodwill left to be lost. Nothing to do with democracy.

 

[Goh Meng Seng]

Dear Locke,

England may not have a "proper constitution" but it still have a constitution "dictated" by various written judgements by judges, treaties by the Monarchy and parliament, statutes... and yes, the judgements passed by the judges are BINDING and that is what I am saying here. Our learned judge's declaration that the Constitution didn't mandate the PM to call for by elections will be binding! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_the_United_Kingdom And overall, these written stuffs will dictate whether England practices democratic principles or not, not only in form, but also in substance.

Even if you have a Constitution, you can still be a communist, dictatorship or even Facist because the Constitution written by those in power, intended for that. This is what I have agreed and that, Singapore Constitution is not written with Democratic principles in mind. If the Constitution isn't written with Democratic principles in mind, you actually believe that the politicians will play ball to practice democratic principles? You must be dreaming man! Any politicians in power, would want FULL power as much as they can, no politicians in power like to be hindered or "checked" by his opponents! And that is exactly what PAP is! Yet, you would say PAP would be so benevolent? Nah. In their perspective, they are just giving you privileges, not rights, to practice that little democratic games.

One of the CORE VALUES of Democracy is Rule of Law and the Constitution itself, is the very basis, fundamentals of RULE of LAW in political setup.

Goh Meng Seng

Dear Scroobal,

Principled Politicians and Politicians about democratic principles with a bee in his bonnet best sums up the article by GMS.

a. A constitution is made democratic by practise, politicians in their actions and political parties. I remember in comparative politics when I was a student that the most democratic constitution on the face of the earth was that of the dear defunct USSR and we know how that worked in practise.

b. The UK does not have a constitution but is it any more democratic ? The powers and the discretion of the PM there has evolved through practise non partisanship and by political parties defending something greater than the rights of each party.


c. It is practise by convention which is under debate here and not some hyperbole claim that a constitution is less or more democratic.


d. Now it is clear that the PAP has used convention and unfettered discretion in the case of Anson to wipe the opposition from the face of the earth. That said and done would the same hold true for the PAP today ? I seriously doubt that LHL could pull an LKY in todays political climate.

e. Parliamentary elections are about parties, by elections about persons. The UK and Malaysia allows party switching by members, Singapore does not. That is a difference in democratic practise but is it a difference in democracy as in non democratic and democratic

f. At the end of the day it all boils down to what or how far a PM or a PAP PM will allow himself to be seen to be be favouring his party over democratic principles, but in itself if the disgression is abused as in the past , it will come to haunt the PAP if it does an Anson. That disgression is not undemocratic, but in the context of an evolving democracy we will see how it works



Locke

 

[Thick Face Black Heart]

locke, could you like SUMMARIZE your entire missive and just say that the constitution may say one thing, but the govt may very well do another? And so we need checks and balances and a plural parliament like what we have in the UK, japan, etc, right?

Brevity please

Dear Scroobal,

Principled Politicians and Politicians about democratic principles with a bee in his bonnet best sums up the article by GMS.

Locke

 

[lockeliberal]

Dear Thick,

In summary , the constitution , and it's interpretation evolves as does practise of democracy derived from it. the fact that the constitution allows a prime minister discretion with no theoretical timeframe on calling a by election does not mean that there are no political constraints on that discretion. Constitutional theory is one issue, practice evolving from it is another and one should see both as linked and not in isolation


Locke




QUOTE=Thick Face Black Heart;1164087]locke, could you like SUMMARIZE your entire missive and just say that the constitution may say one thing, but the govt may very well do another? And so we need checks and balances and a plural parliament like what we have in the UK, japan, etc, right?

Brevity please[/QUOTE]

 

[lockeliberal]

Dear GMS

Never saw you as a strict constitutionalist. You sound just like Antion Scalia in the US when asked on the limits as to what sort of arms that the US right in the constitution to bear arms is limited to that the practically it could mean a American could have the right to own his own SAM.

The constitution is one issue, practices evolving because of history is another , what I am arguing against is conflating the two.


Locke

Dear Locke,

England may not have a "proper constitution" but it still have a constitution "dictated" by various written judgements by judges, treaties by the Monarchy and parliament, statutes... and yes, the judgements passed by the judges are BINDING and that is what I am saying here. Our learned judge's declaration that the Constitution didn't mandate the PM to call for by elections will be binding! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_the_United_Kingdom And overall, these written stuffs will dictate whether England practices democratic principles or not, not only in form, but also in substance.

Even if you have a Constitution, you can still be a communist, dictatorship or even Facist because the Constitution written by those in power, intended for that. This is what I have agreed and that, Singapore Constitution is not written with Democratic principles in mind. If the Constitution isn't written with Democratic principles in mind, you actually believe that the politicians will play ball to practice democratic principles? You must be dreaming man! Any politicians in power, would want FULL power as much as they can, no politicians in power like to be hindered or "checked" by his opponents! And that is exactly what PAP is! Yet, you would say PAP would be so benevolent? Nah. In their perspective, they are just giving you privileges, not rights, to practice that little democratic games.

One of the CORE VALUES of Democracy is Rule of Law and the Constitution itself, is the very basis, fundamentals of RULE of LAW in political setup.

Goh Meng Seng

 

[Thick Face Black Heart]

Dear Thick,

In summary , the constitution , and it's interpretation evolves as does practise of democracy derived from it. the fact that the constitution allows a prime minister discretion with no theoretical timeframe on calling a by election does not mean that there are no political constraints on that discretion. Constitutional theory is one issue, practice evolving from it is another and one should see both as linked and not in isolation


Locke

No disagreements here.

Errr .... don't let leongsam catch you messing up the quote tags.

 

[Goh Meng Seng]

Dear Locke,

Oh, if a practice is not according to the Constitution, then it would be regarded as unconstitutional. I really don't know what you are trying to say, really. If the Constitution says there could only be a ruling party and no others, could you possibly let another party to become the the ruling party? Of course not! That would be unconstitutional and you will lack "legitimacy", so to speak! Unless, you go into a total revolt, arm rising! Or, for a very slight chance but it has happened before, the ruling party just change the Constitution to allow that.

If the Constitution says there should be no universal suffrage and General Elections, you cannot have politicians trying to "practice otherwise". That would be unconstitutional! So I really don't know what you are trying to say, unless, you want to disregard Rule of Law? Well, that's dictatorship style you know... suka suka play play elections, if not happy, just overturn everything. That has happened in history, that's Burma.

You are really missing the point, really. When you do not have enough balance of power, whatever Constitution or Constitutional amendments that come from it, or any practice of "pseudo democratic", are all just illusions. There is no legitimacy in just taking "practice" as the law. Law has to be written, not just play play.

But in Singapore, we are quite special; what is not written in law has far more powerful implications than what has been written!

Goh Meng Seng

Dear GMS

Never saw you as a strict constitutionalist. You sound just like Antion Scalia in the US when asked on the limits as to what sort of arms that the US right in the constitution to bear arms is limited to that the practically it could mean a American could have the right to own his own SAM.

The constitution is one issue, practices evolving because of history is another , what I am arguing against is conflating the two.


Locke

 

[Goh Meng Seng]

Dear Locke,

In any Constitutional Court, it is always the "INTENT" of the time when the Constitutions were written that matters, nothing to do with whatever "practice". In fact, whatever has been "Practiced" must be constrained by the written Constitutions along with "what was intended" back then. That is why the learned Judge is spot on. He understands the very INTENT of how the Constitution was constructed, although I would say he has been too creative to second guess or extrapolated too much on WHAT HAS NOT BEEN WRITTEN instead of concentrating on what has been written.

Unless, the parliament starts to amend the Constitution WITH NEW INTENT, WITH NEW UNDERSTANDING or CONSENSUS, anyone, anybody, cannot just suka suka do whatever they like; that would be totally UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

Thus I would think you have put the cart in front the horse to suggest that the practices take precedent of the Constitution; if that is so, then the Constitution is really just an irrelevant piece of paper that everyone, anyone could just step on it and do whatever they like... That's NOT the RULE of LAW which can only happen in DICTATORIAL regime. In whichever you look at it, your views don't seem to deviate far from mine... Singapore is not meant to be Democratic, but a dictatorial system for PAP.

Goh Meng Seng

Dear Thick,

In summary , the constitution , and it's interpretation evolves as does practise of democracy derived from it. the fact that the constitution allows a prime minister discretion with no theoretical timeframe on calling a by election does not mean that there are no political constraints on that discretion. Constitutional theory is one issue, practice evolving from it is another and one should see both as linked and not in isolation


Locke




QUOTE=Thick Face Black Heart;1164087]locke, could you like SUMMARIZE your entire missive and just say that the constitution may say one thing, but the govt may very well do another? And so we need checks and balances and a plural parliament like what we have in the UK, japan, etc, right?

Brevity please

[/QUOTE]

 

[steffychun]

GMs, it's not England; it's the UK. And the UK does not need to have a constitution--eg it does not say there should be a DPM, yet certain governments can appoint a DPM. In the UK, the PM has the authority to launch a nuclear strike, but unwritten is that final approval comes from the Monarch.

 

[Goh Meng Seng]

So who is the monarch we have in Singapore?

Goh Meng Seng

GMs, it's not England; it's the UK. And the UK does not need to have a constitution--eg it does not say there should be a DPM, yet certain governments can appoint a DPM. In the UK, the PM has the authority to launch a nuclear strike, but unwritten is that final approval comes from the Monarch.

 

[Thick Face Black Heart]

The point which lockeliberal is making, which GMS is missing, and what I have no disagreements with is that the constitution is not the ultimate binding document and everything the govt or the opposition does must fall neatly in line all the time, no deviation, no sidetracks, etc.

These is my understanding:

(a) In any democracy, the constitution is supposed to be adhered to, but no matter how tightly framed the laws are, there is always such a thing as administrative discretion. The law must also be interpreted by whoever is in power and applied to various situations. Very often it is not clear cut, although sometimes it is. In real life, nothing is so neat that you can just rely on the constitution to tell you everything you must do. That is where the fallibility of human beings comes into the picture.

(b) In Singapore currently, even if the PAP decides to do something unconstitutional, there is not sufficient opposition in parliament to challenge it and force it to back down. The president is also unable to do anything as PAP has made sure his powers are curtailed.

(c) Because it is human beings interpreting and applying the law, there is always scope to challenge those in authority on their interpretation and application of the law. If the law is unjust, there is also scope to challenge the law in parliament.

(d) In real life, the process of interpreting and applying the laws is an evolving rather than a static process, and that is where all the politics of modern society lies. Politics is about how we take a set of rules and apply them to benefit the nation.

(e) The Singapore constitution as it is currently framed GIVES too much discretion to the PM whether or not to call a by-election. That is something we as opposition MUST challenge. As i've said before, this was enacted in 1965 to give PM the full discretion and allow the PM to prevent people from frivolously switching sides or vacating their seats and triggering by-elections as and when it suited their political agendas.

(f) Justice Pillai has given a judgment that follows the letter of the law, but his judgment has neglected to address the issue about the SPIRIT of the law. I can't blame him. As Scroobal said, he is not allowed to over-ride Parliament.

 

[AtticusFinch]

GMS,

LockeLiberal did a good summary of the issues involved here. You don't follow the points of others and keep ranting about a fictional overarching concept of a "democratic constitution". It's painful to read your long posts as there are so many words meshed together yet little coherence.

Look, if this is a deep concern for you, you need to seek some guidance from the constitutional experts you listed. Wikipedia does not begin to educate anyone sufficiently on an area as muddled and complex as constitutional law.

Peace out. I'm not looking for a reply from you. I cannot understand you, just take it I'm a dumbass.

AF

 

[AtticusFinch]

....

These is my understanding:

(a) In any democracy, the constitution is supposed to be adhered to, but no matter how tightly framed the laws are, there is always such a thing as administrative discretion. ....

(c) Because it is human beings interpreting and applying the law, there is always scope to challenge those in authority on their interpretation and application of the law. If the law is unjust, there is also scope to challenge the law in parliament.

...

hi TFBH,

I thought your points and Locke's points converge. Certainly, I can follow you guys better than Goh's "made-up" arguments.

On your points (a) and (c) above, I would add that yes there is administrative discretion, and the exercise of such discretion can be challenged (in court, not just parliament) should the exercise itself be contrary to rules of natural justice and/or public policy? The discretion is not unfettered.

In the case brought by Ravi, I don't think he deposed it as an abuse of an administrative discretion.

Above are the whole of my inputs, nothing further.

Cheers
AF

 

[cass888]

Not even with that second upper you're so smug about?

I am terribly sorry that if you really can't understand, I have no means to help you.

Goh Meng Seng

 

[GoldenDragon]

Boss GMS - You must be a genius coz everyone seems to disagree with you - economics, politics, law, domestic affairs, security etc. You are my idol! Have a good weekend.

 

[methink]

So who is the monarch we have in Singapore?

Goh Meng Seng

We all know who the devil is this monarch. It is time for you to join the SDP, the party of democrats! Lets unite to fight the devil together!

 

[Cruxx]

We all know who the devil is this monarch. It is time for you to join the SDP, the party of democrats! Lets unite to fight the devil together!

I'm sorry but democracy is incompatible with the sinkie values of self-preservation and hierarchism. No one in Sinkieland is cognisant of his poverty. Every sinkie perceives himself to be middle-class and is vehemently opposed to the redistribution of wealth from the haves to the have nots without realising that he has more in common with the latter than the former.

 

[Dreamer1]

Boss GMS - You must be a genius coz everyone seems to disagree with you - economics, politics, law, domestic affairs, security etc. You are my idol! Have a good weekend.

So far as I remember,GMS was pretty good when he made several posts about Singapore reserve many years ago here in Sammyboy,it is a pity he did not follow up well in this subject,as it will be EXPLOSIVE pretty soonand that is where he can possibly get some political capital which he has been trying so hard without any success.
The rest of his talks on politics, law, domestic affairs, security etc. are rubbish.

 

[Toronto]

Dear GMS,
You are now non-partisan which you believe will give you the freedom to embark on any cause of action you strongly believe-in without worrying about partisan constrains.
I am very interest to know what will be your next cause of action regarding Democracy in Constitution:

A. Organize the very first constitution protest via Hong Lim Park
B. Form a NGO, maybe with Ravi, Rachel Cheng, UY or Prof Thio to fight or spread awareness
C. Support Ravi in his current fight on HG by-election
D. Continue your arm-chair critics here

 

[lockeliberal]

Dear Atticus

I believe Ravi's long legal battle in YVK vs PP reinforced the principle that all of a Minister's Power are subject to judicial review of some form. However even that is subject to considerations as for example when that review or exercise of that power for pardons and clemency was outside the scope of judicial review.

The PM's discretion to call a by election is a power bounded by history and convention as much as the constitution. The constitution can only broadly set out the principles of representative government, its interpretation and exercise of that said discretion is as much an act of political will, and in the court of public opinion and not a court of law. In that court of public opinion, rabble rousing speeches about democracy to the uneducated plebians from politicians like GMS will no doubt suffice.


Locke

GMS,

LockeLiberal did a good summary of the issues involved here. You don't follow the points of others and keep ranting about a fictional overarching concept of a "democratic constitution". It's painful to read your long posts as there are so many words meshed together yet little coherence.

Look, if this is a deep concern for you, you need to seek some guidance from the constitutional experts you listed. Wikipedia does not begin to educate anyone sufficiently on an area as muddled and complex as constitutional law.

Peace out. I'm not looking for a reply from you. I cannot understand you, just take it I'm a dumbass.

AF