Law Minister’s veiled threat to the electorate?

[Confuseous]

Here we have Shanmugam basically saying that the PM will pick and choose the level of respect he has for the person occupying said office; that a different level of regard might be shown to a Tan Jee Say as President as compared to a Tony Tan as President. Is that the right way for the Executive to engage with the President? If the people are accused of not thinking highly of the office of President, who do you think they take the cue from? I call on the Minister, if not PM, himself, to clarify their stand on engaging the Presidency.

So, is the Minister implying that if the electorate votes in the wrong candidate, they would get an ineffectual President, not by virtue of what said President can offer, does, or says, but by virtue of the regard the Prime Minister has for the individual? Does that not bring into question the regard that the PM and his Cabinet has for the State’s highest office?

- http://theonlinecitizen.com/2011/08/law-minister’s-veiled-threat-to-the-electorate/

 

[borom]

The more he speaks the more he reminded me of the saying

"There is no greater fear than fear itself" .

The pappy is definitely not behaving like a party that has won more than 60% of the votes (and more than 2/3 of the seats) in a recent elections.

How come almost everyone around us vote opposition and yet they win more than 60%-from where?

Are they worried that the 87 year old most expensive MP in history of mankind is going to kick the bucket soon ?

 

[jw5]

Nothing that these assholes say or do frighten me.

 

[HTOLAS]

The good minister is taking a very narrow interpretation of the constitution. The constitution says that the president acts / speaks on the advice of cabinet - it does not, indeed, cannot say that he can only act / speak on the advice of cabinet. If it did, he would not be able to, say, go to the toilet without the advice of cabinet.

So the good minister ought not to have said 'cannot speak except on the advice of cabinet ....' What he should have said was the president 'does not speak except on the advice of cabinet' - this means that the president by custom does not speak out except on the advice of parliament. Where there is reason to break with custom, he should not be stopped.

As to suggestions that the PM can pick and choose which president he has confidence in, the good minister has got it the other way around. It is up to the president to decide which PM he has confidence in, for indeed, if there is a hung parliament, it is up to president to decide who has his confidence to form a government and thus invite him to do so.

 

[Confuseous]

This Sham minister now says:

"Although the President cannot direct the Prime Minister on these matters, he can give his views and his advice even in areas outside his Constitutional power."

Wah liau, like masak masak played by children, these kind of flip flop statements by Law Minister on the Law!

http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/singaporelocalnews/view/1145627/1/.html

 

[HTOLAS]

They've given up on convincing; they hoping to be confusing.

 

[KuanTi01]

Whether veiled or unveiled, all threats must be taken seriously by the electorate esp. coming from the Law Minister. Only difference is that a veiled threat makes it all the more insidious.