you agree with papsmearer that TCB shd not have challenged AGC's opinion that WKW was the 1st elected president?
-
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 Re: Application to High Court for President, Tan Cheng Bock played his cards wrong
- Thread starter Papsmearer
- Start date
you agree with papsmearer that TCB shd not have challenged AGC's opinion that WKW was the 1st elected president?
Speaking of "small technicalities", as I've explained in my post at the top of the thread's second page:
sammyboy.com/showthread.php?243425-Re-Application-to-High-Court-for-President-Tan-Cheng-Bock-played-his-cards-wrong&p=2601528#post2601528
she would qualify, if no "100% Malay" Sinkie qualifies or is nominated, right?
Therefore, a court case or legal suit would only make LHL and the PAP look even better because they would obviously win the case/suit, if no "100% Malay" Sinkie qualifies or is nominated, right?
Yes, just like what I said to ckmpd in another thread late last year:
sammyboy.com/showthread.php?238646-Presidential-Election-2017&p=2545290#post2545290
Also, Tony Tan was already in his early 70s in 2011, so LHL was probably not sure if TT would remain healthy enough to work or "work" as the President for six years, whereas TCB (who shared the same birth year, 1940, with TT) was a medical doctor, who would seem to be in better health than TT.just as some people consider WP to be PAP's "Team B", Tan Cheng Bock was also Tony Tan's "clone" (just in case Tony Tan lost five years ago), in my opinion.
Just because someone bothered to run against Tony Tan 100% means that he is 100% against Tony Tan?
:*: 
I believe that, at the next opportunity, that TCB may wish to challenge that some individual is not a Malay.
I believe that WKW is or was not the first elected President,
because the first elected President of the Republic of Singapore is Mr. Ong Teng Cheong.
I agree with you.
I believe that TCB challenging AGC and pap's opinion is right. This is the first step he takes. If SG Court agrees with him, well and good and we will have an open EP.
But if SG Court retains its kangaroo heritage and PAP insists on fielding HY, then someone must take the 2nd step to challenge her ethnicity
TCB hope to get an unanimous decision that the next elected president in Sep 2017 should NOT be reserved for a malay.
IF he could not get an unanimous decision,he could still stir public opinion for justice and fairness like the obviously light sentence in
Kong Hee's case.But sinkees being sinkees,they are just too timid ,greedy and selfish and they deserved the corrupt,nepotistic and collusive
rulers they got.
IF he could not get an unanimous decision,he could still stir public opinion for justice and fairness like the obviously light sentence in
Kong Hee's case.But sinkees being sinkees,they are just too timid ,greedy and selfish and they deserved the corrupt,nepotistic and collusive
rulers they got.
Let us see how AGC tries to wriggle its way around to justify that WKW was the 1st elected president. WKW was never elected, he was nominated. Every singaporean knows that. How come AGC and pap dont know what everyone knows? Very fishy strategy and I respect TCB for bringing AGC to Court
PAP touts itself as a clean govt. Does anyone agree with the pap?
IF AG can interpret that that since PAP leaders are "already within" the vicinity of voting booth ,they do not breach the parliamentary act of not canvassing during polling day within the voting perimeters.It will not be surprising that the AG can and will interpret that WKW is the 1st elected president although NOT elected.
Do not forget,the AG is beholden to the PM.IF u ever believe the AG is independent ,nonaligned and nonpartisan,pigs can fly !
I agree with you. AGC has said what L:HL wants it to say ie WKW was the 1st EP. But many of us disagree with AGC and I am glad that TCB has brought AGC to Court.
SG Courts may agree with AGC and PAP and come up with some crap reasons. But let us hear and see what Sundaresh Menon is made of and whether he and his Judges have the courage to uphold the truth instead of compromising their integrity and honour like Chan Sek Keong
Any person of mixed race but has one parent as Malay-Muslim and himself or herself practising Sunni Islam will be considered as a full-fledged Malay. Atheist, non-Muslim and especially Christian Malays are not considered as real Malays anymore by the Malay community. Such candidates will not be nominated. Even if they are, they will likely be boycotted by the entire Muslim and Malay-Muslim community regardless of political affiliation.
WKW has passed away. :(
Let's play Devil's advocate - TCB said today that he had already sought the learned opinion of Lord David Pannick before applying to the HC here. And who is DP - he is the same eminent and leading barrister on Constitutional Law who battled against the UK government in front of a full House of Lords on the constitutionality of Article 50/Brexit and won.
https://www.facebook.com/TanChengBock/
COURT APPLICATION ACCEPTED
I would like to announce that this morning, the High Court accepted my application (HC/OS 495/2017), which seeks the Court’s determination on whether a piece of legislation (section 22 Presidential Elections (Amendment) Act 6 of 2017 which counted President Wee Kim Wee as the first Elected Presidency term for the purposes of calling a Reserved Election), is consistent with our Constitution (Articles 19B(1) and 164(1) which introduced the mechanism of a Reserved Election into our Constitution).
I am the Plaintiff and for the purposes of serving Court papers on the Government, the Defendant is the Attorney General.
The application was filed on 5 May 2017. The Court accepted my application this morning, and has fixed a pre-trial conference on 22 May 2017.
To recap, on 31 March 2017, I held a press conference explaining why in my layman’s opinion, starting the count from President Wee’s term appeared to be inconsistent with the spirit and purpose for reserved elections. I then invited the Government or AG to explain the legal reasons for their count.
On 1 April 2017 the Government through MCI said I raised no new points that require a response. I responded to say the MCI missed my point. Nothing further was heard on this issue.
Since this is a matter of national importance, I sought to find the legal answer and consulted the best constitutional lawyer I could find. He is Queen’s Counsel Lord David Pannick. I gave Lord Pannick the Commission Report, White Paper, all relevant Hansard parliamentary reports from 7 Nov 2016 to 6 February 2017, our Constitution and all related statutes on this issue. I asked him one question: whether the AG correctly advised the Government to specify President Wee’s term as the first to be counted on the basis that he was the first President to exercise elected powers.
Lord Pannick has advised that he disagrees with the AG’s advice, and that section 22 Presidential Elections (Amendment) Act 6 of 2017 as it stands is unconstitutional. After receiving Lord Pannick’s reply, I felt I could not keep his legal opinion to myself. It would be in public interest to have the Court decide which legal view is correct - Lord Pannick or the AG.
On 28 April 2017, I engaged M/s Tan, Rajah & Cheah to make the necessary application, and to produce in my affidavit Lord Pannick’s written opinion before the Court. I believe this question can be answered without confrontation or hostility. Both the Government and I have the nation’s best interest at heart. It is in nobody’s interest to have a Reserved Election that is unconstitutional.
I am satisfied that I have, to the best of my ability and capacity, done my part to do what is right in the circumstances, which is to bring to this Court’s attention Lord Pannick’s opinion. Since the matter is now before the Court, it is only right that I refrain from making any further public comment until this case is decided.
If you read the transcript of DP's submissions (or watch him in action before the Law Lords in the Article 50 case) it is very apparent this is no straw man - so according to TCB, DP agrees that the AG interpretation is wrong and that is why he has also submitted the opinion of DP in his application.
https://www.ft.com/content/9ea4fe26-df39-11e6-9d7c-be108f1c1dce
You watch the proceedings here: https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/uksc-2016-0196.html
Local "dons" like Eugene Tan opinions as like pissing pots in comparison to the intellectual might of someone like DP so no doubt this whole submission will either absolve or make a mockery of the correct interpretation. TCB also did the right thing by not applying for DP to represent him but instead relied on his opinion and got R&T to make the application. It is known fact that the SG government regularly seeks the learned opinions of eminent UK barristers on a range of issues and the late Prof Ian Brownlie (from the same chambers as Lord Pannick) famously represented SG on Pedra Branca (https://www.mfa.gov.sg/content/mfa/...s_room/sp_tr/2007/200711/press_200711_23.html)
There is nothing to stop him from challenging HY's ascendency as President (if indeed she is the One chosen and is classified as a DKK) later on by making another separate application by using another eminent barrister to merely provide a learned opinion. Double whammy and not double jeopardy because its a different issue.
https://www.facebook.com/TanChengBock/
COURT APPLICATION ACCEPTED
I would like to announce that this morning, the High Court accepted my application (HC/OS 495/2017), which seeks the Court’s determination on whether a piece of legislation (section 22 Presidential Elections (Amendment) Act 6 of 2017 which counted President Wee Kim Wee as the first Elected Presidency term for the purposes of calling a Reserved Election), is consistent with our Constitution (Articles 19B(1) and 164(1) which introduced the mechanism of a Reserved Election into our Constitution).
I am the Plaintiff and for the purposes of serving Court papers on the Government, the Defendant is the Attorney General.
The application was filed on 5 May 2017. The Court accepted my application this morning, and has fixed a pre-trial conference on 22 May 2017.
To recap, on 31 March 2017, I held a press conference explaining why in my layman’s opinion, starting the count from President Wee’s term appeared to be inconsistent with the spirit and purpose for reserved elections. I then invited the Government or AG to explain the legal reasons for their count.
On 1 April 2017 the Government through MCI said I raised no new points that require a response. I responded to say the MCI missed my point. Nothing further was heard on this issue.
Since this is a matter of national importance, I sought to find the legal answer and consulted the best constitutional lawyer I could find. He is Queen’s Counsel Lord David Pannick. I gave Lord Pannick the Commission Report, White Paper, all relevant Hansard parliamentary reports from 7 Nov 2016 to 6 February 2017, our Constitution and all related statutes on this issue. I asked him one question: whether the AG correctly advised the Government to specify President Wee’s term as the first to be counted on the basis that he was the first President to exercise elected powers.
Lord Pannick has advised that he disagrees with the AG’s advice, and that section 22 Presidential Elections (Amendment) Act 6 of 2017 as it stands is unconstitutional. After receiving Lord Pannick’s reply, I felt I could not keep his legal opinion to myself. It would be in public interest to have the Court decide which legal view is correct - Lord Pannick or the AG.
On 28 April 2017, I engaged M/s Tan, Rajah & Cheah to make the necessary application, and to produce in my affidavit Lord Pannick’s written opinion before the Court. I believe this question can be answered without confrontation or hostility. Both the Government and I have the nation’s best interest at heart. It is in nobody’s interest to have a Reserved Election that is unconstitutional.
I am satisfied that I have, to the best of my ability and capacity, done my part to do what is right in the circumstances, which is to bring to this Court’s attention Lord Pannick’s opinion. Since the matter is now before the Court, it is only right that I refrain from making any further public comment until this case is decided.
If you read the transcript of DP's submissions (or watch him in action before the Law Lords in the Article 50 case) it is very apparent this is no straw man - so according to TCB, DP agrees that the AG interpretation is wrong and that is why he has also submitted the opinion of DP in his application.
https://www.ft.com/content/9ea4fe26-df39-11e6-9d7c-be108f1c1dce
You watch the proceedings here: https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/uksc-2016-0196.html
Local "dons" like Eugene Tan opinions as like pissing pots in comparison to the intellectual might of someone like DP so no doubt this whole submission will either absolve or make a mockery of the correct interpretation. TCB also did the right thing by not applying for DP to represent him but instead relied on his opinion and got R&T to make the application. It is known fact that the SG government regularly seeks the learned opinions of eminent UK barristers on a range of issues and the late Prof Ian Brownlie (from the same chambers as Lord Pannick) famously represented SG on Pedra Branca (https://www.mfa.gov.sg/content/mfa/...s_room/sp_tr/2007/200711/press_200711_23.html)
There is nothing to stop him from challenging HY's ascendency as President (if indeed she is the One chosen and is classified as a DKK) later on by making another separate application by using another eminent barrister to merely provide a learned opinion. Double whammy and not double jeopardy because its a different issue.
Last edited:
My sense is that this was carefully planned and executed. And it cannot be the work of one man. Also note the way he wrote his facebook post.
As to HY eligibility if she indeed the one the door closed by the framing of the legislation. This part the PAP sealed it tight and no eminent silk to can do much. It tells you the clear intent of the PAP.
As to HY eligibility if she indeed the one the door closed by the framing of the legislation. This part the PAP sealed it tight and no eminent silk to can do much. It tells you the clear intent of the PAP.
I sensed the same - getting Lord Pannick's opinion is a masterstroke especially given his recent result against the UK government and it not a fluke choice of counsel - if you have time to watch DP in action its worth it just to see how he handles the questions thrown at him by the Law Lords.
Ironically the the HC recently turned down an application from another QC, Toby Landau to represent a client of R&T citing the stable of SCs who are adequately qualified to so the job - however the government themselves have used Toby on other arbitrations. We know that drill.
http://www.singaporelaw.sg/sglaw/la...ourt-judgments/22607-re-landau-toby-thomas-qc
Yeah, AG must be working doubly hard and he probably never thought his brains would be taxed so early in his tenure. Chelva I am sure is equal to the task.
Similar threads
