Tag Archives: wee kim wee

Workers' Party's Sylvia Lim, who finally got to speak on the EP, argued that the Government misled people into thinking that the decision to start counting from Wee Kim Wee was a result of the AGC's advice, when it was not.

Dr Tan Cheng Bock does not have to pay his $30,000 legal fees as it is considered to be a case of public interest. Nevertheless, many questions on the EP remain unanswered. Should we exercise our rights to seek those answers?

Sylvia Lim of the Workers' Party has re-filed a notice to speak on an adjournment motion on the topic "Counting from President Wee Kim Wee or President Ong Teng Cheong for Reserved Presidential Election - Policy Decision or Legal Question?"

Workers' Party's Yee Jenn Jong is disappointed at the walkover and wonders if Presidents are not meant to go through elections, what with the 'lacking' results in PE1993 and PE2011. Do we really have to wait till the next election to show what we think and who we want as President?

The Court of Appeal has dismissed Dr Tan Cheng Bock's appeal on the upcoming Presidential Election and said the decision to specify President Wee Kim Wee as Singapore's first elected President is lawful. Does this come as a surprise?

Deputy Attorney-General Hri Kumar said, “There has been a narrative since this application was filed…that there has somehow been a re-writing of history…that Wee Kim Wee has been deemed an elected president. (But) no one said he was an elected president…the government had to start the count somewhere and it gave its reasons for starting with Wee Kim Wee. The nature of the advice was not disclosed or even discussed in Parliament. The Prime Minister started the count from Wee Kim Wee not because he was an elected president, but because he exercised the powers of the Elected President. It was a policy decision.” So, please remember Wee Kim Wee is not an elected President. Don't later flip-flop to say he is the 1st Elected President.

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.

Apparently in agreement with the Attorney-General Chamber (AGC), Justice Loh said: “From the perspective of ensuring multi-racial representation in the Presidency in view of the President’s symbolic role, it makes no difference whether the President was elected by the electorate or by Parliament. Did anybody notice that instead of saying "appointed by the Government", the term "elected by Parliament" is used to distinguish it from "elected by the electorate"? So President Wee Kim Wee was "elected by Parliament" and not merely “appointed by the Government."

The High Court dismissed Dr Tan Cheng Bock's constitutional challenge to the upcoming reserved Presidential Election. This comes after the AGC accused Dr Tan of being selfish for undermining multiracial representation and for wanting to run in the next election. Dr Tan has until next Wednesday to file a notice of appeal and has not reached a conclusion. Does this come as a surprise? Have we lost yet another hopeful candidate who can actually be our voice?

I would like to announce that this morning, the High Court accepted my application (HC/OS 495/2017), which seeks the Court’s determination on whether a piece of legislation (section 22 Presidential Elections (Amendment) Act 6 of 2017 which counted President Wee Kim Wee as the first Elected Presidency term for the purposes of calling a Reserved Election), is consistent with our Constitution (Articles 19B(1) and 164(1) which introduced the mechanism of a Reserved Election into our Constitution). Since this is a matter of national importance, I sought to find the legal answer and consulted the best constitutional lawyer I could find. He is Queen’s Counsel Lord David Pannick.