- Joined
- Jul 24, 2008
- Messages
- 33,627
- Points
- 0
[h=2]SDP: Costs in constitutional applications are wrong[/h]
October 15th, 2012 |
Author: YourSDP
The application by the Attorney General (AG) to award costs against Mdm Vellama d/o Marie Muthu in her application for a constitutional decision on whether the Prime Minister has unfettered discretion in calling elections is wrong.
As the government’s lawyer, the AG is duty-bound to act on behalf of the government. Regardless of the merits of his client’s case, the AG is obliged to argue it.
The quality of a functioning democracy depends on the civic-mindedness of the people and the strength of civil society, both of which are themselves largely depend on the facilitation of democratic rights by the state.
It depends on the belief that all citizens have a right and a responsibility to ensure good governance.
And finally, it depends also on the notion that government can get it wrong.
In Singapore, the management of our state and society has left many questions unanswered in the application of democratic principles. It has left the playing field between the ruling party and its opponents decidedly tilted.
For citizens like Mdm Vellama to question the Executive on constitutional grounds is good for society. No government, regardless of what the PAP might say, has a monopoly on good governance.
A constitutional application allows the nation, via a single applicant, to query the justness of a policy in a court hearing. It allows the courts, plenary in their own sphere, to consider the rightness of administrative action and whether the principles of the Constitution, our supreme law, have been violated. The courts, therefore, guard against capricious action by the state.
As a society, we should support citizen initiatives because they help to improve our administrative and judicial structures and clarify our rights. Over time, they help to level up the playing field.
Mdm Vellama did not act in her own benefit alone nor she did not mount a mischievous or malicious action. Her application was taken on behalf of the whole electorate; she represented us all when she went to our courts to ask our judges to establish what limits our executive should have in respect of our parliamentary elections.
To impose costs upon a citizen – and in this case, a citizen on a low-income – is to run the risk of deterring citizens from taking an active interest in how we are governed. Or worse, that only those who can afford it to do so should be allowed to obtain redress from the courts.
Given that so many Singaporeans are emigrating because they feel this utter lack of kinship and loyalty to their country of birth, it is perhaps time that we encourage greater interest in the governance of the state. It would make little sense to denude them of one of the last remaining ties that bind us to this nation.
.
Singapore Democrats
The application by the Attorney General (AG) to award costs against Mdm Vellama d/o Marie Muthu in her application for a constitutional decision on whether the Prime Minister has unfettered discretion in calling elections is wrong.
As the government’s lawyer, the AG is duty-bound to act on behalf of the government. Regardless of the merits of his client’s case, the AG is obliged to argue it.
The quality of a functioning democracy depends on the civic-mindedness of the people and the strength of civil society, both of which are themselves largely depend on the facilitation of democratic rights by the state.
It depends on the belief that all citizens have a right and a responsibility to ensure good governance.
And finally, it depends also on the notion that government can get it wrong.
In Singapore, the management of our state and society has left many questions unanswered in the application of democratic principles. It has left the playing field between the ruling party and its opponents decidedly tilted.
For citizens like Mdm Vellama to question the Executive on constitutional grounds is good for society. No government, regardless of what the PAP might say, has a monopoly on good governance.
A constitutional application allows the nation, via a single applicant, to query the justness of a policy in a court hearing. It allows the courts, plenary in their own sphere, to consider the rightness of administrative action and whether the principles of the Constitution, our supreme law, have been violated. The courts, therefore, guard against capricious action by the state.
As a society, we should support citizen initiatives because they help to improve our administrative and judicial structures and clarify our rights. Over time, they help to level up the playing field.
Mdm Vellama did not act in her own benefit alone nor she did not mount a mischievous or malicious action. Her application was taken on behalf of the whole electorate; she represented us all when she went to our courts to ask our judges to establish what limits our executive should have in respect of our parliamentary elections.
To impose costs upon a citizen – and in this case, a citizen on a low-income – is to run the risk of deterring citizens from taking an active interest in how we are governed. Or worse, that only those who can afford it to do so should be allowed to obtain redress from the courts.
Given that so many Singaporeans are emigrating because they feel this utter lack of kinship and loyalty to their country of birth, it is perhaps time that we encourage greater interest in the governance of the state. It would make little sense to denude them of one of the last remaining ties that bind us to this nation.
.
Singapore Democrats
