[TorryJens]

Well, I have been waken from my political slumber once again and this time, it is really the most exciting and important happening that comes into my mind! I have long suspected that Singapore isn't a democratic country that all of us are made to believe by reciting our National Pledge everyday during our school time. Forget about the pledge which just state "Highfalutin" motherhood statements and ideas on "to build a democratic society". That pledge is after all, just for kids and teenagers to recite! How many of us, or the politicians who recite that pledge every time (only on National Day and election rallies), truly believe in all those Highfalutin ideas embedded in it? Stop kidding ourselves!

My suspicion that Singapore isn't and never was, a democratic society at all has been proven by a learned judge today. I am so happy that these mysterious doubts in my head have finally been cleared and solved. I have to thank this learned judge for his great effort in helping me to confirm that our Constitution wasn't really written with true democratic principles in mind. Let me elaborate here.

According to Todayonline report, the presiding judge of the Hougang By-Election case, Justice Philip Pillai, has declared that

"there was no requirement in the Constitution to call elections to fill elected Member vacancies. There being no such requirement, there arises no prescribed time within which such elections must be called".

[softy54534]

TL;DR

Dafug this is all about?

[Big A]

I am terribly sorry that if you really can't understand, I have no means to help you.

Goh Meng Seng

TL;DR

Dafug this is all about?

[LottiFurmann]

I am terribly sorry that if you really can't understand, I have no means to help you.

Goh Meng Seng

I am even more sorry that if you really can't understand, nobody wants to be bothered with your 'anal-sex-list'. May your extraterrestrial friends help you

[TorryJens]

The by-election is HG was called quickly within a few months because from the early beginning, the govt was aware of the ground sentiment. That was why the PAP's blue-eyed boy Eugene Tan went to CNA and ST to declare "his" stand/opinion that the govt should call for a by-election.

If the ground was apathetic, the govt could have dragged its feet, but not so lucky this time round as the mood is still fresh from 2011 and a lot of burning issues on people's minds especially foreigners taking away jobs and making life a living hell in Singapore.

The 1965 constitutional amendment was done to give the PAP leeway to hold off by-elections in case people start playing political games with the electoral system, or start vacating parliamentary seats frivolously. Basically to prevent people from triggering by-elections as and when it suits their purposes/fancies/whims. With the absence of Barisan or other real opposition (unlike what we have today) it was basically a tool of internal control to make sure the PM has all the cards in his hands.

It is the citizens that will force the PAP's hands and make them act in more democratic ways. If we have more oppo in Parliament, its also harder for PAP to act blur and pretend they can drag their feet indefinitely when a seat has been vacated. Forget constitutional amendment as it's not going to happen until the oppo captures 2/3 of parliament which will not happen in the next 3 or 4 elections. It is the national groundswell that will force PAP to act.

[MannoFr]

Well, I have been waken from my political slumber... I have long suspected that Singapore isn't a democratic country that all of us are made to believe by reciting our National Pledge everyday during our school time. My suspicion that Singapore isn't and never was, a democratic society at all has been proven by a learned judge today. I am so happy that these mysterious doubts in my head have finally been cleared and solved. I

I also woke up from my slumber and find it new that you think this is so mysterious when IN FACT everyone knew Singapore never is a democratic country. You are simply repeating what has all along been expected from our Kangaroo in most people's mind, at least 90% Sam forumers here believe so. Just like you find it so surprising that WP still win at least 60% votes in the bi-election.

[MannoFr]

Well, I have been waken from my political slumber once again and this time,

You are still STUBBORN . Your brother David Goh already told you in the dream to GIVE UP on politics and don't bring MORE SHAME to ANY Political Parties !

[Fegasderty]

Dear Thick

If we look at it from a strictly legal argument , then Justice Pillai has made a strong case. The clincher which GMS leaves out is that in 1963 there was inserted a change in the constitution to hold "elections within three months of a vacancy" so that the SG constitution was in line with the Malaysia Constitution. After Singapore left, that change was taken out and it was at the behest of LKY.

So then constitutionally the discretion when to call a by election rests entirely in the realm of politics and the pressure and strength of feeling on the ground.


Locke

The by-election is HG was called quickly within a few months because from the early beginning, the govt was aware of the ground sentiment. That was why the PAP's blue-eyed boy Eugene Tan went to CNA and ST to declare "his" stand/opinion that the govt should call for a by-election.

If the ground was apathetic, the govt could have dragged its feet, but not so lucky this time round as the mood is still fresh from 2011 and a lot of burning issues on people's minds especially foreigners taking away jobs and making life a living hell in Singapore.

The 1965 constitutional amendment was done to give the PAP leeway to hold off by-elections in case people start playing political games with the electoral system, or start vacating parliamentary seats frivolously. Basically to prevent people from triggering by-elections as and when it suits their purposes/fancies/whims. With the absence of Barisan or other real opposition (unlike what we have today) it was basically a tool of internal control to make sure the PM has all the cards in his hands.

It is the citizens that will force the PAP's hands and make them act in more democratic ways. If we have more oppo in Parliament, its also harder for PAP to act blur and pretend they can drag their feet indefinitely when a seat has been vacated. Forget constitutional amendment as it's not going to happen until the oppo captures 2/3 of parliament which will not happen in the next 3 or 4 elections. It is the national groundswell that will force PAP to act.

[doctorzlo]

Can't somebody tell me: is there still independence of the judiciary?

[PhillipHer]

Can't somebody tell me: is there still independence of the judiciary?

so long that the pap is in power, you dream on....

[Slonopotam845]

Yup, a strong case by taking what is not written in the Constitution as the guiding principle.

Goh Meng Seng

Dear Thick

If we look at it from a strictly legal argument , then Justice Pillai has made a strong case. The clincher which GMS leaves out is that in 1963 there was inserted a change in the constitution to hold "elections within three months of a vacancy" so that the SG constitution was in line with the Malaysia Constitution. After Singapore left, that change was taken out and it was at the behest of LKY.

So then constitutionally the discretion when to call a by election rests entirely in the realm of politics and the pressure and strength of feeling on the ground.


Locke

[Fegasderty]

Dear Locke,

Yup, you have a very good point here and I don't disagree with you.

If a Constitution is written to create dictatorship, all judges also bo pian and will end up saying, well, we must follow the initial INTENT of the Constitution, which is, to create and sustain a dictatorship.... Just like China. If you are against CCP, you are against the Constitution (because the Constitution written by CCP has dictated that only CCP is the legitimate ruling party and no one else could rule China) and thus, you are against the whole country...

So, it is true that and right that the learned judge has ruled as such, because according to the past amendment made by PAP to the Constitution, to do away (removed) with the 3 months limited time frame, the original intent of the Constitution is not meant to be Democratic at all but subject to the will of PAP. The learned judge is definitely right in this sense and there is nothing wrong for him to speculate that the reason why the Constitution didn't dictate that by elections MUST be held for vacated seats means that the original intent of the Constitution is for PM to decide, just like any dictator who will decide whether to give you the privilege to vote and have a representative in parliament or not. Yes, how true, our Constitution is not meant to uphold democracy at all.

Dear Thick

If we look at it from a strictly legal argument , then Justice Pillai has made a strong case. The clincher which GMS leaves out is that in 1963 there was inserted a change in the constitution to hold "elections within three months of a vacancy" so that the SG constitution was in line with the Malaysia Constitution. After Singapore left, that change was taken out and it was at the behest of LKY.

So then constitutionally the discretion when to call a by election rests entirely in the realm of politics and the pressure and strength of feeling on the ground.


Locke

[S.T.D.]

The American constitution is just as bad written to allow people to kill each other

[Ifroham4]

If we look at it from a strictly legal argument , then Justice Pillai has made a strong case. The clincher which GMS leaves out is that in 1963 there was inserted a change in the constitution to hold "elections within three months of a vacancy" so that the SG constitution was in line with the Malaysia Constitution. After Singapore left, that change was taken out and it was at the behest of LKY.

Justice Pillai has merely followed the letter, but not the spirit of the law. You can argue that a judge is only obliged to follow the letter of the law as far as constitutional cases are concerned and that Pillai has simply done what has been expected of him. However, this case is political in nature to begin with, and Pillai has only passed what I term a "bookworm" judgement -- merely accomplished by reading and interpreting sentences using high school grammar and vocabulary.

The real test of the law is good is whether its application makes sense to the common man. If it does not, then it shows the law is not designed for the common man, but designed to benefit the powers that be.

So then constitutionally the discretion when to call a by election rests entirely in the realm of politics and the pressure and strength of feeling on the ground.
Locke

Isn't that exactly my point???

[radikal]

@Goh Meng Seng.

NO SHIT SHERLOCK

[S.T.D.]

The Judiciary is not allowed to override parliament no matter how unfair the legislation is. The principle of separation is important and prevents one key state institution does not undermine another. As TFBH pointed earlier that it was changed to address an issue of that time. There are other controls such as you cannot be an MP if you are expelled by your party.

I am amazed that after 2 elections and one as leader of the party with the largest number of candidates, he was not aware of Singapore referred by such endearing terms such as benevolent dictatorship, authoritarian government, tyrannical regime etc. No foreigner has ever defined Singapore as a democracy.

The only reason the PAP held a by elections was to stop whatever goodwill left to be lost. Nothing to do with democracy.

[radikal]

But it is also a fact that our government always declare that we are democratic,with the qualification that we are differenet because of Asian,whatever that means.PAP does not do that in Singapore though.

[Peptobismol]

Dear Scroobal,

Apparently you have failed comprehension here! Read carefully! I understood very well and I said, people don't agree with me when I keep telling them Singapore is not Democracy!

Goh Meng Seng

The Judiciary is not allowed to override parliament no matter how unfair the legislation is. The principle of separation is important and prevents one key state institution does not undermine another. As TFBH pointed earlier that it was changed to address an issue of that time. There are other controls such as you cannot be an MP if you are expelled by your party.

I am amazed that after 2 elections and one as leader of the party with the largest number of candidates, he was not aware of Singapore referred by such endearing terms such as benevolent dictatorship, authoritarian government, tyrannical regime etc. No foreigner has ever defined Singapore as a democracy.

The only reason the PAP held a by elections was to stop whatever goodwill left to be lost. Nothing to do with democracy.

[Lillie_Steins]

Dear Scroobal,

Apparently you have failed comprehension here! Read carefully! I understood very well and I said, people don't agree with me when I keep telling them Singapore is not Democracy!

Goh Meng Seng

How dare you say that! The wise voters of Tampines did what the wise voters of Aljunied did 5 years ago, they blocked you from entering parliament

[S.T.D.]

so long that the pap is in power, you dream on....

KMT ruled Taiwan for nearly 40 years with an iron hand under father and son.

KMT is still in power in Taiwan today and we all know it is a democratic political party. Naturally our politics will evolve in a similar fashion...