Judicial courts in Singapore should stop assuming that the government is always right or being the political mouth piece of the government.
I read with some concern the article (appended in quote below) 'What court decision on by-election reveals' [TODAY, 06Aug2013] and noted the bias in 2 contrasting statements pertaining to the decision of the court to "dismissed her appeal on the ground that she lacked standing to have the case heard."
The court's reason for giving Madam Vellama "no standing" being "By the time the matter came before the Court of Appeal, the Hougang by-election had already taken place. Thus, she no longer had any personal interest in the issue raised. The fact that it might become relevant again in the future was not enough to establish that she had sufficient interest in the matter at this time.
If the applicant possessed standing in the present scenario, the Court reasoned, this would lead to the courts being flooded with legal actions brought by “mere busybodies and social gadflies, to the detriment of good public administration”.
And in defense of the government was written "the Court was reluctant to set a precedent that would potentially require the Government to defend more court cases, diverting time and resources away from the day-to-day governance of the nation",
Obviously the court is indeed more interested currying favor to the immediate interest of the ruling government, not causing it too much inconvenience, even though "the Court’s ruling at this point makes it harder for applicants to raise constitutional issues for the courts’ consideration if the factual basis for the issues has dissipated, even though resolving the issues would provide guidance to the Government and the public."
It is certainly shameful and regrettable that an Hougang resident, seeking appeal into an earlier court ruling regarding her constitutional right to have an MP representing her in Parliament should be ridiculed with the insinuations "mere busybodies and social gadflies, to the detriment of good public administration".
Worse, since "the Court’s ruling at this point makes it harder for applicants to raise constitutional issues for the courts’ consideration if the factual basis for the issues has dissipated, even though resolving the issues would provide guidance to the Government and the public."One can then thus be sure that whilst this decision might bring short term convenience to the ruling government, that the government of tomorrow should face more severe issues would be of no surprise simply because constitutional issues had never been proactively heard, thus decreasing the citizen's faith in the authenticity and reliability of their government, not to mention the insurmountable mountain of constitutional and other issues which would suddenly present themselves at the most inopportune time.
I understand stability and sustainability of all mature democracies to be founded upon the principles of the separation of powers, whereby the Judiciary, the Executive and the Legislature. Such is the confidence that the people have in their rulers that peace pervades the land. If however, the citizens of the land feel that the powers that be are undeserving (prostituting to each other) then social unrest follows, firstly through petty misdemeanor and later by mass rebellion.
Singapore might (like North Korea) have the know how to manipulate people and numbers to declare itself a first world GDP, but in so far as the political power is so strongly concentrated in the hands of the Executive, a first world democracy is what Singapore will never be... then again, like N Korea, Singapore could also declare itself a first world democracy... much to the bemusement of all who can truly see.
Disclaimer/ disclosure: This essay is based on facts in the appended article, the author has not read the Supreme Court judgement into the matter (yet). The author is NOT a qualified lawyer.
Tags:
Singapore, Judiciary, Hougang, by-election, Executive, election,
Last edited:
