"Non-violation of Article 144" - what would Tan Cheng Bok have said? What about TT?

[Confuseous]

SINGAPORE - The Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) yesterday rebuked claims by Reform Party chief Kenneth Jeyaretnam that the Government's US$4-billion (S$5 billion) pledge to the International Monetary Fund (IMF) had violated the Constitution.

Over the past few weeks, Mr Jeyaretnam has been arguing on his blog that the commitment to the IMF - which was announced by the MAS on April 20 - contravened the provisions of Article 144 of the Constitution because it had not been approved by Parliament or the President. Yesterday, he also filed an originating summons in the High Court for a hearing to, among other things, hear an application for a court order to quash the Government's pledge to the IMF.

Among other things, Article 144 states that "no guarantee or loan shall be given or raised by the Government except under the authority of any resolution of Parliament with which the President concurs".

In response to media queries, an MAS spokesperson reiterated that Article 144 "does not apply to lending by Government".

 

[sense]

Re: "Non-violation of Article 144" - what would Tan Cheng Bok have said? What about T

SINGAPORE - The Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) yesterday rebuked claims by Reform Party chief Kenneth Jeyaretnam that the Government's US$4-billion (S$5 billion) pledge to the International Monetary Fund (IMF) had violated the Constitution.
:
:
In response to media queries, an MAS spokesperson reiterated that Article 144 "does not apply to lending by Government".

Article 144 Restriction on Loans, Guarantees, etc.
(1) No guarantee or loan shall be given or raised by the Government
(a) except under the authority of any resolution of Parliament with which the President concurs;
(b) under the authority of any law to which this paragraph applies unless the President concurs with the giving or raising of such guarantee or loan; or
(c) except under the authority of any other written law.
(2) The President, acting in his discretion, may withhold his assent to any Bill passed by Parliament providing, directly or indirectly, for the borrowing of money, the giving of any guarantee or the raising of any loan by the Government if, in the opinion of the President, the Bill is likely to draw on the reserves of the Government which were not accumulated by the Government during its current term of office.
(3) Clause (1)(b) shall apply to the following laws:
(a) the Asian Development Bank Act;
(b) the Bretton Woods Agreements Act;
(c) the Economic Development Board Act;
(d) the External Loans Act;
(e) the Financial Procedure Act;
(f) the International Finance Corporation Act;
(g) the Jurong Town Corporation Act; and
(h) the Loans (International Banks) Act.

 

[Jumong]

Re: "Non-violation of Article 144" - what would Tan Cheng Bok have said? What about T

Among other things, Article 144 states that "no guarantee or loan shall be given or raised by the Government except under the authority of any resolution of Parliament with which the President concurs".

In response to media queries, an MAS spokesperson reiterated that Article 144 "does not apply to lending by Government".

Isn't loan given by government as provided under Art. 144 equivalent to lending by government ?

 

[tanakow]

Re: "Non-violation of Article 144" - what would Tan Cheng Bok have said? What about T

Isn't loan given by government as provided under Art. 144 equivalent to lending by government ?

"no guarantee or loan shall be given or raised by the Government except under the authority of any resolution of Parliament with which the President concurs".

MAS is interpreting the statement as "no guarantee shall be given or loan shall be raised by the Government except under the authority of any resolution of Parliament with which the President concurs".
whereas all of us are reading it this way "no guarantee shall be given or raised or loan shall be given or raised by the Government except under the authority of any resolution of Parliament with which the President concurs".

 

[Papsmearer]

Re: "Non-violation of Article 144" - what would Tan Cheng Bok have said? What about T

SINGAPORE - The Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) yesterday rebuked claims by Reform Party chief Kenneth Jeyaretnam that the Government's US$4-billion (S$5 billion) pledge to the International Monetary Fund (IMF) had violated the Constitution.

Over the past few weeks, Mr Jeyaretnam has been arguing on his blog that the commitment to the IMF - which was announced by the MAS on April 20 - contravened the provisions of Article 144 of the Constitution because it had not been approved by Parliament or the President. Yesterday, he also filed an originating summons in the High Court for a hearing to, among other things, hear an application for a court order to quash the Government's pledge to the IMF.

Among other things, Article 144 states that "no guarantee or loan shall be given or raised by the Government except under the authority of any resolution of Parliament with which the President concurs".

In response to media queries, an MAS spokesperson reiterated that Article 144 "does not apply to lending by Government".

Where does it say in Article 144 that the article does not apply to lending by govt. In fact, there is no exception as far as I can see for intra govt. lending. Also, since when is IMF considered a govt.?

 

[noname]

Re: "Non-violation of Article 144" - what would Tan Cheng Bok have said? What about T

This kind of interpretaton thing, don't bother asking that Chan Sek Keong. People haven't forgotten his "a person INSIDE a polling station cannot be said to be WITHIN a radius of 200 metres of a polling station.” FUBAR.

 

[Jumong]

Re: "Non-violation of Article 144" - what would Tan Cheng Bok have said? What about T

This kind of interpretaton thing, don't bother asking that Chan Sek Keong. People haven't forgotten his "a person INSIDE a polling station cannot be said to be WITHIN a radius of 200 metres of a polling station.” FUBAR.

Is this the reason for the ascension of Steven Chong to where CSK used to sit ?

 

[scroobal]

Re: "Non-violation of Article 144" - what would Tan Cheng Bok have said? What about T

Until he went for the originating summons, these mudderfuckers felt that they could do what they liked. Whether KJ is right or wrong whether he is a good or hopeless politician is not the issue. The fact that he took the trouble to form a team and contest an election require a modicum of engagement. Imagine he was an ordinary citizen.

Disgraceful government. Why have massively funded grassroots organsiation when you can even answer a single question.

The guy also attained a muvh much higher standard than the current MAS chief.

 

[scroobal]

Re: "Non-violation of Article 144" - what would Tan Cheng Bok have said? What about T

CSK will remembered for the polling station thingy until the day he dies. How he managed to make a circle a square.

This kind of interpretaton thing, don't bother asking that Chan Sek Keong. People haven't forgotten his "a person INSIDE a polling station cannot be said to be WITHIN a radius of 200 metres of a polling station.” FUBAR.

 

[Force 136]

Re: "Non-violation of Article 144" - what would Tan Cheng Bok have said? What about T

$4,000,000,000 to pay for the Welfare policies of Greece and Spain (social security, free health care etc), while our own Singaporean poor have little to eat for the next meal.......

What rubbish.

I hope Tony Tan can come out to say something.... otherwise, he better resign....

 

[Fook Seng]

"no guarantee or loan shall be given or raised by the Government except under the authority of any resolution of Parliament with which the President concurs".

MAS is interpreting the statement as "no guarantee shall be given or loan shall be raised by the Government except under the authority of any resolution of Parliament with which the President concurs".
whereas all of us are reading it this way "no guarantee shall be given or raised or loan shall be given or raised by the Government except under the authority of any resolution of Parliament with which the President concurs".

I will take the second interpretation. From the sentence structure, it implies both give and raise are implied unless the objects cannot be married with both verbs separately. This does not seem to be the case. Further, both lending and borrowing end up in the balance sheet. A bad loan is as bad as a borrowing you cannot repay.