On SG President "Grant of Pardon"
Part 1
What
Steven Chong said:
85 … [T]he clemency process is not justiciable on the grounds pursued by [the Appellant], because:
(a) the power to grant pardons under Article 22P is exercised by the Cabinet, and not the President, who has no discretion in the matter;
(b) apparent bias is not an available ground on which to review the clemency process;
(c) there is no evidence of a pre-determination of [the Appellant]’s imminent [clemency] petition; and
(d) there is no basis for a substantive right to the materials which will be before the Cabinet when it advises the President on the clemency petition.
Steven Chong's opinion is also agreeable by CJ Chan Sek Keong.
source: Civil Appeal No 144 of 2010 Yong Vui Kong v Attorney-General
http://www.mediafire.com/?5h06hh4o5xgm45l
Part 2
What's stated in the
SG Constitution:
Grant of pardon, etc.
22P. —(1) The President, as occasion shall arise, may, on the advice of the Cabinet—
(a) grant a pardon to any accomplice in any offence who gives information which leads to the conviction of the
principal offender or any one of the principal offenders, if more than one;
(b) grant to any offender convicted of any offence in any court in Singapore, a pardon, free or subject to lawful
conditions, or any reprieve or respite, either indefinite or for such period as the President may think fit, of the
execution of any sentence pronounced on such offender; or
(c) remit the whole or any part of such sentence or of any penalty or forfeiture imposed by law.
(2) Where any offender has been condemned to death by the sentence of any court and in the event of an appeal such sentence has been confirmed by the appellate court, the President shall cause the reports which are made to him by the Judge who tried the case and the Chief Justice or other presiding Judge of the appellate court to be forwarded to the Attorney-General with instructions that, after the Attorney-General has given his opinion thereon, the reports shall be sent, together with the Attorney-General’s opinion, to the Cabinet so that the Cabinet may advise the President on the exercise of the power conferred on him by clause (1).
source: Constitution Of The Republic Of Singapore
http://www.mediafire.com/?cjl6b2vme526z6e
Case Scenarios
Case 1: Steven Chong and CJ Chan are both wrong and/or the President was sleeping.
Case 2: Steven Chong and CJ Chan are both right & the so call 'power conferred on' the President in 22P is an illusion and/or there are typo errors in 22P.
Sense, as I have mentioned before, Steven Chong is a bloody idiot and Chan Sek Keong is the standard bearer for dumb judges when u look at his "loitering ouside the polling station is a crime, but inside is not" decision. If the power to grant clemency is truly a power granted solely to the Cabinet as per Chong's opinion, than why is it in the constitution that "the President may on advice of the cabinet..............a) Grant a pardon"? Why is this decision conferred to the President under advicement of the cabinet? Why not the Cabinet just make the decision solely by itself to pardon or not pardon, and skip the President all together? After all, if Chong is correct, than there is no need for the cabinet to give the president any advice at all. They just decide on their own, right? What people don't understand, and that includes u by the way, is that Chong's ruling is a political one, not one based on constitutional law. Ravi was already stirring up a lot of shit with his challenges after Shanmugan opened his mouth and shot his foot off with it. Ravi rightly pointed out that this is the first time since the position of President was enacted, that anyone has heard the Cabinet is the one to grant clemency and not the President. Therefore, Chong's task was to deliver a ruling that supports Shanmugam, rather than SHanmugan doing the embarassing, but right thing, which is to admit he does not know the constitution even as the Law Minister. Therefore, the whole ruling is political and not legal. Of course, u have Chan in on it also, and he is probably the guy behind the scene. I wouldn't be surprised if Chan himself wrote the ruling, and arrowed Chong to deliver it. It smacks of the kind of warp legal logic that he is famous for.
U can see in paragraph 2 of article 22P that the constitution INTENDS the president to be involve in all death sentence cases. The president has to be given the rulings on the death sentences by the various courts and appelate courts and forward them to the AG and ask the AG for his opinion. The AGs opinion will ALWAYS concur with the court ruling as it is his office that prosecuted the defender for trial in the first place. The court reports and the AG's opinion is than send to the cabinet so that the cabinet "may" advice the President on how he can excercise his power. The sentence that u highlight already indicates the Cabinet's role is that of advicing and not of the final arbiter in the yea or nay decision. Therefore, Chong is wrong. Please note too that the sentence that u highlighted says "the Cabinet MAY advice the president". Not "must", "shall", or "required". Therefore, in theory, the Cabinet does not even have to provide any advice to the president on any death sentences if it chooses not to. Its not compelled or required under the constitution to do so. In fact, if anyone has the time, they can check and see whether the cabinet issued an advice on every death sentence case presented before the president for clemency. There may be cases where the cabinet make no comment whatsoever.
Also in the preamble to Article 22P (1), you rightly highlighted that "The president, as the occasion shall arise, may, on the advice of the cabinet.........a) Grant a pardon". The operative words here are "may" and "advice". An advice is a recommendation, and connotes a voluntary action whether to follow this recommendation or not. So, if a clemency petition comes before the president, and the cabinet has adviced the president to grant the clemency, he could refuse to do this, because he is not required to follow the advice. The wording says "may" and not "shall", "must" or "required" to follow the Cabinet's advice. The converse must also be true. i.e. if a petition comes before him, and the cabinet advices that the clemency be denied, he could likewise go against the advice and grant the pardon.
In your scenarios, both case 1 and 2 are not the scenarios. The president was not sleeping, but he is not embarassing Shanmugam by challenging the cabinets supposed power. And in scenario 2 , the 2 koondoos are definitely not right.
