• 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.

So, Sham - which part of constitution says it is unconstitutional of EP to....

Confuseous

Alfrescian (Inf)
Asset
Joined
Dec 30, 2010
Messages
12,730
Points
113
So which part of this section of the Constitution states that the President can speak on issues only as authorised by the Cabinet?

Which part states that if the President challenges the Govt, he will be acting unconstitutionally?

The President will be acting unconstitutionally if he breaks the constitution. So which part of the constitution will he be breaching if he speaks on issues that "Cabinet does not approve"? Or which part of the constitution he will be breaching if he challenges the Govt?

Would the good Law Minister care to explain?

PAP probably feels that there may be a good chance that a non-endorsed PAP may well be the President. As such, Shanmugam has to come out with this scare tactic, hopefully to put pressure on candidates who have been campaigning that they will speak for the people, rather than for PAP


- http://wherebearsroamfree.blogspot.com/2011/08/law-minister-shanmugam-wants-to-play-by.html
 
Back
Top