DiscussWorldIssues - Socio-Economic Religion and Political Uncensored Debate - View Single Post - Verdict : Singapore Constitution Isn't that Democratic

**Fegasderty** · 08-02-2012, 08:09 PM

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

08-02-2012, 08:09 PM	#12
Fegasderty Join Date Mar 2008 Posts 5,023 Senior Member	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
	Quote