Constitution

FARID KHAN THANKS SUPPORTERS, SAYS HE STEPPED UP FOR MALAYS AS ONLY FEW COULD QUALIFY

Farid Khan thanked people for their support despite being disqualified from running for Presidency. He said he stepped forward because he saw a duty to do so for the Malay community, given the limited number of candidates who potentially qualify under the amendments.

Filed Under: 

CHIOBU WP MEMBER: WILL YOU ACCEPT EP RESULT? WHAT DOES IT SAY ABOUT OUR SOCIETY?

Workers' Party's He Ting Ru is worried that people are so upset about the elected Presidency but wonders if it tells a lot about our society given that so few good men/women were willing to put themselves forward. What do you think?

Filed Under: 

CHEE SOON JUAN: WELCOME TO THE DELUSIONAL WORLD OF THE ELECTED PRESIDENCY!

Singapore Democratic Party's Chee Soon Juan penned an opinion piece on what he thinks is a "delusional world" of the Elected Presidency. He outlined Mr Ong Teng Cheong's efforts to check on the government (but to no avail), and how candidates after him have to be "approved by the government".

Filed Under: 

WAS OUR CONSTITUTION AMENDED SPECIALLY FOR MDM HALIMAH TO RUN FOR PRESIDENCY?

Why does the definition of Malayness in our Constitution have an additional clause - "whether of the Malay race or otherwise", but not for other races? Was that clause added specially for Halimah to run for the upcoming reserved Presidency?

Filed Under: 

TAN CHENG BOCK'S APPEAL TO BE HEARD THIS MTH SO IT WON'T AFFECT PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

Dr Tan Cheng Bock stands by his decision to appeal against the dismissal of his constitutional challenge: "my lawyers have advised that the Judge may have misconstrued the relevant Constitutional provisions. I have therefore filed an appeal to the Court of Appeal (CA No. 124 of 2017) to review the Court decision". The appeal will likely be heard on the week of 25 July 2017.

Filed Under: 

TAN CHENG BOCK APPEALS AGAINST HIGH COURT'S DECISION ON PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

Dr Tan Cheng Bock has decided to appeal against the High Court for dismissing his application to contest the legitimacy of the upcoming Presidential Election. Despite having intentions to run for Presidency, he was not considered eligible due to amendments to the Constitution and the introduction of the reserved presidency. In Dr Tan's application, he called for an open election and disagreed with the government's decision for counting Mr Wee Kim Wee as the first popularly elected President.

Filed Under: 

GOH MENG SENG: JOIN US & SUPPORT TAN CHENG BOCK'S CONSTITUTIONAL CHALLENGE!

Lim Tean, Tan Kin Lian, Syafarin Sarif and I had started the initiative to publish a Non-Partisan Joint Statement in support of Dr Tan Cheng Bock's challenge of the Constitutional change to enforce Reserved Elected Presidency based on dubious grounds.

We have come together as a group of concerned Singaporeans, from diverse walks in life and from a wide political spectrum, to ask Singaporeans to stand up and to protect our Constitution from constant manipulation by the PAP government to suit their selfish political needs.

We are pleased to note that Dr Tan Cheng Bock has mounted a judicial challenge to the constitutionality of the next Presidential Election being a reserved election. Even if it is now the law that there must be a reserved election for a particular racial group if no one from that group has been President after 5 continuous terms, it is clear to everyone of us that only the Presidential election of 2023 need be a reserved election. The next Presidential election in September this year should be an open election as there have been only 4 elected Presidents since the Elected Presidency scheme came into effect, with Mr Ong Teng Cheong being our first elected President. We do not know of any ordinary Singaporean who has taken an opposing view.

Since the PAP Government insists that the upcoming Presidential election is a reserved election under the Presidential Elections (Amendment) Act 2017, the burden was on them to explain to the Singapore people the basis of their decision. It was incumbent upon them to produce the advice which they said they had obtained from the Attorney-General, which formed the basis of their decision. This is no different to a judge having to give his reasons for a decision made by him. It was important for the Government to have made known the reasoning behind the Attorney-General’s advice because the Attorney-General’s advice does not constitute the law of the land and is open to challenge by way of Judicial Review.

Filed Under: 

NETIZEN: SPOIL YOUR VOTE TO PROTEST UNFAIR CONSTITUTION CHANGE

i am thinking of invalidating my vote when it comes, to indicate my frustration and protest against this stupid constitution. it got me into thinking... what if there are many more ppl like me also invalidating their votes at the polling station? sekali the number of invalid votes counted is more than 50%, wouldn't this be a clear message to the stupid pap govt that their constitution change is really bullshit and the people are not happy?

Filed Under: 

HOW DOES THE GOVT & THE COURTS INTERPRET THE CONSTITUTION?

What resonated with me most strongly were the concerns expressed about the public duty and independence expected of the AG. Senators expressly affirmed that the person appointed as AG owed a Constitutional duty to the People to uphold the law, and, as its top law enforcement officer, to apply the law without fear or favour. Sen Sessions was specifically asked whether he could be independent and stand up to the President if the occasion called for it.

These weighty questions should also be in our minds regarding our top law enforcement officials. Unlike the US system, we do not need Parliamentary approval of key public appointments such as the AG, so long as the President concurs with the advice of the PM and the Council of Presidential Advisors has no issue with it.

Filed Under: 

Pages

Advertisement
Subscribe to RSS - Constitution