Verdict : Singapore Constitution Isn't that Democratic

[Goh Meng Seng]

Dear Toronto,

I don't wish to disturb my own good political slumber unnecessarily. But if I have to work on the activism side, I don't think I would focus on a narrow scope as such. Not that such focus is no good... in fact I think sometimes, it is good for some activists to be very focus on certain issues, like the mandatory death penalty campaign or even the Bukit Brown heritage saga (which I may have very different stand).

As an economic trained person, I have more interests and wider scope of things. Economics, also involved in political economics in terms of public finance (spending), political ideological economic models and such. I am also used to be concerned about current issues which include social issues since young.

In short, I don't think I may start anything like a NGO to focus on a single issue, though I would help out occasionally if time permits. eg. Minibond Saga.

Internet forum like this one is just a place for my leisure and entertainment. You will see me disappearing from this forum when I am very busy but back again when I am really bored. Armchair critic? Well I have experienced both as armchair critic as well as partisan political activist. There is nothing wrong to be armchair critic because in life, different people will have different priorities at different time.

Most likely, if I am going to be active again, which I don't think it would be in the near future, it would be in a very different manner.

Goh Meng Seng

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

 

[Goh Meng Seng]

Dear Locke,

Your assertion that " The PM's discretion to call a by election is a power bounded by history and convention as much as the constitution." really holds no ground! The Constitution has once demanded elections to be held within 3 months of seats being vacated and this is history. The only problem is that PAP has changed this according to its own will, nothing about being "convention" or "history". If you want to talk about history, it is only about the dictatorial ways of bulldozing over the Constitution, nothing to do with public convention or consensus or practice.

Goh Meng Seng

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

 

[lockeliberal]

Dear GMS

According to the Judge, that period in time was linked to the need to be consistent as part of our union with Malaysia which had such a provision. In isolation our practice of democracy has differed from that of Malaysia. Malaysia allows party switching, ours expressly forbids it, Malaysia has a three months dateline, ours does not, Is it more democratic or is it just a different way of doing things. There are better grounds to challenge the Prime Minister discretion though and I for one would like to see a challange as to how electoral boundaries are re drawn.


Locke

Dear Locke,

Your assertion that " The PM's discretion to call a by election is a power bounded by history and convention as much as the constitution." really holds no ground! The Constitution has once demanded elections to be held within 3 months of seats being vacated and this is history. The only problem is that PAP has changed this according to its own will, nothing about being "convention" or "history". If you want to talk about history, it is only about the dictatorial ways of bulldozing over the Constitution, nothing to do with public convention or consensus or practice.

Goh Meng Seng

 

[AtticusFinch]

.... There are better grounds to challenge the Prime Minister discretion though and I for one would like to see a challange as to how electoral boundaries are re drawn.


Locke

Locke,

Firstly, I am not a constitutional law expert. My understanding is the customs, practices and norms of a people are taken into consideration in administrative review, but not all discretion or exercise of powers are open to review (as pointed out by the judge in the Hougang by election case, certain requirements need to be met before the court has jurisdiction), and the courts do not change laws made by legislature, but interprets and applies the law.

Would you agree with the above understanding? If you do, can we agree that there are written laws as made by legislature and our own notions of what the laws should be according the majority views, sentiments or customs (lets call this the Collective Will) and the two can be different, eg. customs have developed differently from archaic written laws or changed circumstances.

Mr Goh's point, a valid one, is PAP with a voting majority in parliament may make laws as representatives that are incongruent with the Collective Will. Procedurally, these laws can be good and applicable laws. Once they are part of written laws and in force, judicial review is available, but limited.

I believe Mr Goh will better serve his interest by getting into parliament as a representative and challenge PAP in the correct representative forum (hopefully, he will do it with more coherence and empirical evidence). He may think opposition like WP are not doing a good job, but neither he nor any of us are in parliament to make a meaningful difference. He needs to get into that forum first.

You mention the re-drawing of electoral boundaries, but many more need to debated in parliament, such as :
a. does the primeval force that was used as justification for GRC exists/still exists? are GRCs effective? are there alternatives to GRCs?
b. is the Election Department more likely to serve an independent function shoud it operate not under the PMO?
etc...

Cheers
AF

 

[Goh Meng Seng]

So, what does that mean actually? Suka suka change lor! Especially when no one was in parliament to oppose anything!

Goh Meng Seng

Dear GMS

According to the Judge, that period in time was linked to the need to be consistent as part of our union with Malaysia which had such a provision. In isolation our practice of democracy has differed from that of Malaysia. Malaysia allows party switching, ours expressly forbids it, Malaysia has a three months dateline, ours does not, Is it more democratic or is it just a different way of doing things. There are better grounds to challenge the Prime Minister discretion though and I for one would like to see a challange as to how electoral boundaries are re drawn.


Locke

 

[Goh Meng Seng]

BTW, it was PAP which agreed to join Malaysia and follow their constitution! You mean practice and conventions can change so fast meh?

Your argument is stretching too far. I am not even arguing the judge is wrong! I am just saying he is right in stating the obvious fact that the Constitution didn't state that by elections must be held and all depend on one man, the PM. Thus, the Constitution wasn't written with Democratic intent nor principles. Do you really have problem with that?

Goh Meng Seng

Dear GMS

According to the Judge, that period in time was linked to the need to be consistent as part of our union with Malaysia which had such a provision. In isolation our practice of democracy has differed from that of Malaysia. Malaysia allows party switching, ours expressly forbids it, Malaysia has a three months dateline, ours does not, Is it more democratic or is it just a different way of doing things. There are better grounds to challenge the Prime Minister discretion though and I for one would like to see a challange as to how electoral boundaries are re drawn.


Locke

 

[zhihau]

Forget about the pledge which just state <b>"Highfalutin"</b> motherhood statements and ideas on <b>"to build a democratic society"</b>. That pledge is after all, just for kids and teenagers to recite! How many of us, or the politicians who recite that pledge every time (only on National Day and election rallies), truly believe in all those <b>Highfalutin ideas </b>embedded in it? Stop kidding ourselves

little wonder the old man remarked that the national pledge is merely an aspiration

 

[cass888]

Oh, you nitwit. Don't try to be a lawyer now. In England, Parliament is supreme. Judgements can be overruled.

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

 

[ChaoPappyPoodle]

To all farking morons, the very basics of democracy means the people have someone that they voted to represent them in parliament. This is farking obvious. If you cannot accept this then please do not talk about what democracy is or isn't.

If we agree that the basics of democracy is to have a representative that is voted into parliament then it becomes obvious that when a single seat ward becomes vacant for one reason or another then there should be an election called to fill the void.

 

[Cruxx]

To all farking morons, the very basics of democracy means the people have someone that they voted to represent them in parliament. This is farking obvious. If you cannot accept this then please do not talk about what democracy is or isn't.

It's broader than that. Democracy = power to the people. As such, India, given their abject poverty and wealth disparity, isn't a democracy.

 

[methink]

It's broader than that. Democracy = power to the people. As such, India, given their abject poverty and wealth disparity, isn't a democracy.

Same for sinkieland here. Do we here hear the people's voice or the dictator's? One man deciding everything for us surely isn't a democracy!

PM alone deciding whether to carry out by-elections or changing the electoral boundaries at his own whims and fancies, is definitely not democratic. We need to change the way things are run now.

 

[Fook Seng]

Same for sinkieland here. Do we here hear the people's voice or the dictator's? One man deciding everything for us surely isn't a democracy!

That one man thinks that he knows the people's voice than the people themselves.

 

[Dreamer1]

It's broader than that. Democracy = power to the people. As such, India, given their abject poverty and wealth disparity, isn't a democracy.

It's broader than that. Democracy = 100% free plus 100% fair elections.
USA, is now 100% free plus 70%-90% fair elections,not yet a democaracy
Singapore,100% free plus 0% fair elections from 1959 no wards till 2011.not democracy,
from 2011,100% free plus 50% fair elections.on half way mark to democracy.


USA,

 

[Cruxx]

It's broader than that. Democracy = 100% free plus 100% fair elections.
USA, is now 100% free plus 70%-90% fair elections,not yet a democaracy
Singapore,100% free plus 0% fair elections from 1959 no wards till 2011.not democracy,
from 2011,100% free plus 50% fair elections.on half way mark to democracy.


USA,

Why are you sinkies so fixated on elections? I've already explained that democracy is the devolution of power to the people. There are a myriad of facets to power. It's not confined to just the polls, you know? A free and fair election does not democracy make.

 

[ChaoPappyPoodle]

It's broader than that. Democracy = power to the people. As such, India, given their abject poverty and wealth disparity, isn't a democracy.

Power to the people is true and to get there the people must be represented. Hence the need for a by-election when an SMC's representative voids his or her position for one reason or another. As you rightly suggested, the power of the people must be placed first and foremost. That parliament has not provided succinct motives and recourse on such matters is a showcase of the PAPzi's fascist ideals in one-party rule and specifically, rule by a small elite group at every opportune moment.

 

[steffychun]

Define a useful constitution for the people. The American constitution allows people the right to own weapons to kill each other if desired. Is that useful? That decreases the number of voters for the democracy.

 

[Cruxx]

Define a useful constitution for the people. The American constitution allows people the right to own weapons to kill each other if desired. Is that useful? That decreases the number of voters for the democracy.

Gong jiao wei! Austria has much more liberal gun laws than Sinkieland with more people and land to police and yet they have a homicide rate equal to that of Sinkieland (if you can believe the statistics of a government that holds transparency and accountability in contempt). America is a culture of violence, with or without guns. Anyway, it's pointless debating over the merits of the constitution when there can be no debate in the first place. You want to know what's an useful constitution for the people? Perhaps you can start by giving the people a chance to tell you what it is. Forget the constitution. The more pertinent issue is electoral reform. Time to get rid of the archaic system of "first past the post" and replace it with proportional representation.

 

[steffychun]

Gong jiao wei! Austria has much more liberal gun laws than Sinkieland with more people and land to police and yet they have a homicide rate equal to that of Sinkieland (if you can believe the statistics of a government that holds transparency and accountability in contempt). America is a culture of violence, with or without guns. Anyway, it's pointless debating over the merits of the constitution when there can be no debate in the first place. You want to know what's an useful constitution for the people? Perhaps you can start by giving the people a chance to tell you what it is. Forget the constitution. The more pertinent issue is electoral reform. Time to get rid of the archaic system of "first past the post" and replace it with proportional representation.

you want Singapore to be like Israel's proportion rep? And have a screwed up system? Even the UK rejected PR

 

[tanwahp]

I don't wish to disturb my own good political slumber unnecessarily.

It's not about your decision to be slumbering or hibernating. It's about how people and country benefit from the decision you make. If you don't even realize that, then you should lead a private life away from politics and activism.

 

[Cruxx]

you want Singapore to be like Israel's proportion rep? And have a screwed up system?

You want Singapore to be like China's unaccountable one-party dictatorship where the state can seize your land and evict you from your house with virtually no compensation at all? If a parliament can't come to an unanimous decision, so be it. Parties can either make do with a proportionate share of the government budget to finance their pet projects or form coalitions with one another. I'm an anarcho-capitalist. I'm firmly of the belief that the interests of the individual should take precedence over that of the collective. Forced solidarity is no solidarity at all.

Even the UK rejected PR

No, they didn't. What they rejected was Alternative Vote (AV). It's just another form of "winner takes all" voting which I advocate against.