• IP addresses are NOT logged in this forum so there's no point asking. Please note that this forum is full of homophobes, racists, lunatics, schizophrenics & absolute nut jobs with a smattering of geniuses, Chinese chauvinists, Moderate Muslims and last but not least a couple of "know-it-alls" constantly sprouting their dubious wisdom. If you believe that content generated by unsavory characters might cause you offense PLEASE LEAVE NOW! Sammyboy Admin and Staff are not responsible for your hurt feelings should you choose to read any of the content here.

    The OTHER forum is HERE so please stop asking.

Serious Tan Cheng Bock files affidavit to ask AGC to explain Elected President count

Patriot

Alfrescian
Loyal
[h=1]Tan Cheng Bock files affidavit to ask AGC to explain Elected President count[/h]
1-1.jpg
 

Patriot

Alfrescian
Loyal
The Independent understands that Dr Tan Cheng Bock, presidential candidate in the 2012 elections, has filed a submission on Friday at the High Court on the issue of the elected presidency.

We understand that Dr Tan is asking the Attorney General’s Chambers to explain why the late Wee Kim Wee is considered Singapore’s first Elected President, and not Ong Teng Cheong.

Earlier this year, the Government had said that, after receiving advice from the Attorney General, it had decided that the count of 5 presidential terms should start with the late former President Wee.

This, the Government said, was because Dr Wee had exercised the duties and responsibilities of the Elected President, even though he was not popularly elected in an open election.

Dr Wee was the last Singapore president to be appointed by the Government.

In constitutional changes earlier this year, the Government introduced amendments to allow a presidential election to be a Reserved Election where only candidates of a certain minority race can participate, if 5 terms have lapsed without a minority-race president having taken office.

Dr Tan, who narrowly lost to Dr Tony Tan in the 2012 elections, had said last year that he would contest this year’s presidential election, which is to be held in September.

He had also earlier called on the Government to explain how the count is decided, and asked that this year’s election be an open one because there have only been 4 openly elected presidents, which does not satisfy the constitutional requirement of 5 elections before a Reserved Election is to be held.

At a press conference in March, Dr Tan said:

“I now invite the Government or the AGC to explain why they counted the presidential terms of presidents who exercised elected powers. If need be, the Government can refer AGC’s opinion to Court for independent judicial verification. After all, the Courts have the final say on legal issues in Singapore. And a recent high profile Court of Appeal case has shown that the AGC is not always correct in their legal opinion.”

However, the Government responded by saying that the matter had already been debated in Parliament and that a Constitutional Commission had also held public hearings and received feedback and had issued its report which was presented to the Government. As such the Government said it found it unnecessary to respond to Dr Tan’s questions.

The Independent is reaching out to Dr Tan for confirmation and further comments about the court filing.

We will provide updates when we receive new information and confirmation.
 

JohnTan

Alfrescian (InfP)
Generous Asset
I didn't see tan cheng bock file affidavits when he conducted his MP election bids aided by all the grassroots support while his oppie opponent had to conduct election using solely his own resources. What a hypocrite cheng bock is! Now biting the hand of the party that fed him so well throughout his political career.
 

scroobal

Alfrescian
Loyal
I am glad he did. When PAP was challenged on how they came to the decision by WP, Short arse marriage counsellor changed the topic by accusing them of impinging on the character of the AGC rather than answer the question.
 

Semaj2357

Alfrescian (Inf)
Asset
I am glad he did. When PAP was challenged on how they came to the decision by WP, Short arse marriage counsellor changed the topic by accusing them of impinging on the character of the AGC rather than answer the question.
"I could if I would, but I can't, so I don't" - this sounds familiar to you :confused:
 

halsey02

Alfrescian (Inf)
Asset
Who the f#$@$k bother with Tan Cheng Bok, he is another, bred by pap person, I won't even trust. When the president elections come in September, I will do the same thing for all the president elections...cast a blanc vote.
 

frenchbriefs

Alfrescian (Inf)
Asset
reminds me of Chinese scientist joke...."why is centralised government planning better than tofu?" "Because i said so!!!!"
 

Satyr

Alfrescian
Loyal
I am glad he did. When PAP was challenged on how they came to the decision by WP, Short arse marriage counsellor changed the topic by accusing them of impinging on the character of the AGC rather than answer the question.

John F Kennedy wrote the book " Profiles in Courage". An account of the lives of men who demonstrated exceptional courage. If any such book is written, none of the second or third generation leaders would make it. In fact I find them great cowards .
 

jw5

Moderator
Moderator
Loyal
John F Kennedy wrote the book " Profiles in Courage". An account of the lives of men who demonstrated exceptional courage. If any such book is written, none of the second or third generation leaders would make it. In fact I find them great cowards .

The same could be said of you. :rolleyes:
 

Reddog

Alfrescian
Loyal
In a country where being in a election center is not taken as being in the vicinity of the election center, goalposts are on wheels. Ha Ha.
 

JohnTan

Alfrescian (InfP)
Generous Asset
In a country where being in a election center is not taken as being in the vicinity of the election center, goalposts are on wheels. Ha Ha.

Vicinity of the election centre means outside but nearby the center.
 

frenchbriefs

Alfrescian (Inf)
Asset
John F Kennedy wrote the book " Profiles in Courage". An account of the lives of men who demonstrated exceptional courage. If any such book is written, none of the second or third generation leaders would make it. In fact I find them great cowards .

what about LKY?does exceptional cowardice count too?
 

Patriot

Alfrescian
Loyal
I am glad he did. When PAP was challenged on how they came to the decision by WP, Short arse marriage counsellor changed the topic by accusing them of impinging on the character of the AGC rather than answer the question.

Tan Cheng Bock’s court action pits CC against AG on definition of “elected president”
May 7, 20175




Dr Tan Cheng Bock, presidential candidate in the 2011 elections, is reported to have filed a submission with the courts, to compel the Attorney General (AG) to explain changes to the Elected President scheme.

Namely, Dr Tan wants the AG to explain why the late Dr Wee Kim Wee, Singapore’s 4th government-appointed president, is also considered the nation’s first Elected President.


Tan CB
Dr Tan, who narrowly lost in the 2011 elections, had announced last year that he would again participate in this year’s contest . However, with the changes to the scheme to make this year’s contest a Reserved Election, Dr Tan no longer qualifies.

The Elected President scheme was introduced in 1991, just 2 years before the end of Dr Wee’s 8-year tenure as an appointed president.

His successor, Ong Teng Cheong, was the first president to go through an actual open electoral contest in September 1993, in which he beat his opponent Chua Kim Yeow with 58.7% of the vote.

Dr Tan’s court filing on Friday comes after changes were made to the Presidential Elections Act earlier this year, on the recommendations of the Constitutional Commission (CC), chaired by Chief Justice Sundaresh Menon.

Among the wide-ranging changes was the introduction of a Reserved Election which will be held if there has not been a minority-race President for 5 consecutive terms, or 30 years.



It is this which is at the heart of Dr Tan’s court action, after the Government had dismissed his call in March to explain why the count of 5 terms should start with President Wee, and not President Ong.

The Government had explained, in Parliament during the debate on the White Paper on the changes, that it was advised by the Attorney General that the count should start from President Wee because he was the first president to exercise the powers under the elected presidency.

Dr Tan, and the parliamentary opposition, had called on the Government to release or make public the advice given by the AG but the Government has refused to do so.

When asked in Parliament by the opposition to do the same, the Minister in the Prime Minister’s Office, Chan Chun Sing, said: “You will know that when you get advice, you do not freely publicise your advice and you may have various reasons why you do not publicise all your advice.”

The Commission vs the AGC


Constitutional Commission hearing in 2016
At the very heart of the controversy here is the definition of the term “elected president”.

Is the Elected President someone who merely exercises the duties and responsibilities of the elected presidency, or should the person also have gone through an actual open electoral contest and has won the majority vote?

Here, it would seem the Constitutional Commission, chaired by the Chief Justice, and the Attorney General, who advises the Government, hold different views.

From what Minister Chan told the House, the Attorney General’s views seem to be that anyone who exercises the powers of the elected presidency is considered an Elected President. Thus, President Wee is the first Elected President.

However, the Constitutional Commission’s views seem to be different. This is significant as the Commission is chaired by the Chief Justice himself.

Here we refer to the Commission’s own report.

First, in point 5.5, it explicitly mentioned that President Ong is “the first elected President”, not President Wee which the Commission also mentioned in the same sentence.

This is the exact quote from the report [emphasis added]:

“MR LEE KUAN YEW WENT ON TO OBSERVE THAT AFTER HAVING HAD TWO PRESIDENTS IN A ROW FROM THE CHINESE COMMUNITY (NAMELY, MR WEE KIM WEE AND THE FIRST ELECTED PRESIDENT, MR ONG TENG CHEONG), IT WAS VITAL THAT THE NEXT PRESIDENT OF SINGAPORE BE A MEMBER OF A MINORITY RACE: “T’S TIME TO REMIND SINGAPOREANS, TO HAVE A SYMBOL OF A MULTI-RACIAL COMMUNITY, AN EXPRESSION OF OUR NATIONAL IDENTITY”.

The reference to Mr Lee is an interview the former Senior Minister gave to the Straits Times in 1999.

What Mr Lee said:

ST: Right. But the fact that he [SR Nathan] was Indian, do you think there was a feeling that it’s time for a minority to be president?

SM Lee: Yes, I think so because we’ve had two terms of Wee Kim Wee, one term of Ong Teng Cheong. I think it’s time to remind Singaporeans that we are a multiracial community. And it’s also good. It’s a symbolic expression of our national identity.

Do note that Mr Lee, in this interview, did not describe President Ong as the “first elected president”. It was the Commission which did.

So, it is fair to say that that is how the Commission viewed President Ong – as Singapore’s first Elected President.

And in point 7.5 of the Commission’s report, it explains how the Elected President obtains his “legitimacy” [emphasis added]:

“THE COMMISSION CONSIDERS THAT THE PRESIDENT’S LEGITIMACY DERIVES FROM THE FACT THAT HE HAS ASSUMED OFFICE THROUGH A PROCESS WHICH IS FREE, OPEN AND FAIR, AND WHICH BINDS ALL CITIZENS. THE CENTRAL FEATURE OF THAT PROCESS IS THAT HE MUST HAVE GARNERED THE LARGEST SHARE OF VOTES AT A NATION-WIDE ELECTION.”

The Elected President is someone who “must have garnered the largest share of votes at a nation-wide election.”

This is how he has the legitimacy to be a check on the Government, on behalf of the people of Singapore.

It was President Ong, President Nathan and President Tony Tan who have all gone through such a “free, open and fair… nation-wide election.”

President Wee, who remains one of Singapore’s most popular presidents, did not.

Law Professors weigh in

Following the constitutional changes this year, two law professors weighed in to give their views on the Singapore Public Law website. They both referred to the fundamental requirement of the president to go through an election.

“The office of President was transformed into one directly elected by the people to give the President moral authority to disapprove of government decisions, if need be,” said Assistant Professor of Law, Jack Tsen-Ta Lee of the School of Law at the Singapore Management University (SMU).

Professor Lee explained why President Ong was Singapore’s first Elected President, and not President Wee.

“We might assume the first person to exercise discretionary powers was Ong Teng Cheong, as he won the inaugural presidential election in 1993,” Prof Lee said. “In fact it was Wee Kim Wee who was the first one to do so, due to a special provision – Article 163(1) – inserted into the Constitution when the Elected Presidency scheme was introduced:

“THE PERSON HOLDING THE OFFICE OF PRESIDENT IMMEDIATELY PRIOR TO 30TH NOVEMBER 1991 SHALL CONTINUE TO HOLD SUCH OFFICE FOR THE REMAINDER OF HIS TERM OF OFFICE AND SHALL EXERCISE, PERFORM AND DISCHARGE ALL THE FUNCTIONS, POWERS AND DUTIES CONFERRED OR IMPOSED UPON THE OFFICE OF PRESIDENT BY THIS CONSTITUTION AS AMENDED BY THE CONSTITUTION OF THE REPUBLIC OF SINGAPORE (AMENDMENT) ACT 1991 (ACT 5 OF 1991) […], AS IF HE HAD BEEN ELECTED TO THE OFFICE OF PRESIDENT BY THE CITIZENS OF SINGAPORE […]”

Professor Lee said: “The provision was carefully worded to avoid deeming Wee Kim Wee as having been elected, so although he exercised all the discretionary powers of an elected President, the first truly elected President was Ong Teng Cheong.”

Adjunct Professor of Law, Kevin Tan, of the National University of Singapore (NUS), similarly wrote about why an election was necessary to give the president the moral authority to perform his constitutional role as a check on the government of the day.

Prof Tan wrote:

“THE IDEA WAS THAT ELECTIONS GAVE HOLDERS OF THE OFFICE A MAJORITARIAN MANDATE UPON WHICH SAT ITS MORAL AUTHORITY TO CONTROL AN ELECTED GOVERNMENT. THE LOGIC OF THIS IDEA SURELY LAY IN (A) GIVING THE ELECTORATE A REAL CHOICE IN TERMS OF THE CANDIDATES; AND (B) ENSURING THAT THE CHOSEN CANDIDATE HAD INDEED BEEN PUT THROUGH THE RIGOURS OF ELECTIONS AND EMERGED WITH AN UNDISPUTED MAJORITY.”

Affirmation in Govt’s White Paper

The Government’s own White Paper, issued in response to the Commission’s report, states very clearly who an Elected President is:

“A PRESIDENT WHO ASSUMES OFFICE AFTER A RESERVED ELECTION WOULD, LIKE ALL OTHER ELECTED PRESIDENTS, HAVE MET THE CONSTITUTIONALLY PRESCRIBED ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA AND BEEN CHOSEN THROUGH A NATIONAL ELECTORAL PROCESS.” [EMPHASIS ADDED]

While the Government said it had been advised by the Attorney General, the Government seems to have agreed with the Constitutional Commission and the law professors, in fact, on what an “Elected President” is – someone who has gone through an actual and open electoral contest, or an election.

In the Presidential Elections Act, “election” means “an election for the purpose of electing the President.”

Is Commission right, or the AG?

So, it all comes down to the interpretation of what “Elected President” is, and whose interpretation of the term is accurate and definitive.

On the one hand, we have the Attorney General, the legal adviser to the Government.

On the other, there is the Constitutional Commission, chaired by the Chief Justice himself whose business is interpretation of the law.

The two sides seem to hold a different view of the term “Elected President”.

Whose view should hold more weight, or is the correct one?

It is regrettable that the Government chose to be so dismissive of Dr Tan’s and the parliamentary opposition’s call for it to explain the issue, or to make public the Attorney General’s advice, so Singaporeans can have some clarity on the matter.

In fact, in Parliament in February, Mr Chan had told Ms Sylvia Lim, Workers’ Party MP, who had raised questions about the matter:

“ARE YOU SUGGESTING THAT THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL DID NOT GIVE THE GOVERNMENT THE APPROPRIATE ADVICE? OR THAT THE PRIME MINISTER HAS NOT BEEN TRUTHFUL WITH THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL’S ADVICE?

“IF IT’S THE FIRST, THEN I THINK MS LIM, AS SUGGESTED BY DPM TEO (CHEE HEAN), CAN CHALLENGE THIS IN (THE) COURTS.”


Chan CS
Now, Dr Tan has indeed brought it to the courts.

There is no reason for the Government to oppose the application, since it was Mr Chan and DPM Teo themselves who suggested it.

Let the courts be the final arbiter of what should and would have been a simple matter, if not for the Government’s arrogance and dismissive attitude towards those with valid concerns, refusing to provide explanations and openness on the matter.

All of this could have been avoided if there was more openness from the Government. Now, taxpayers’ money and the court’s resources will have to be spent on this.
 
Top