Why so many lawyers in the PAP team?
-
out of the 24 new faces in the PAP team there are 7 lawyers. Do u think these people have the time to serve the people. The present PAP lawyers already do not have time to attend parliment session. R we going to see an empty parlimentary session in the future? comments pls
-
Used to it already lar.
-
Politicians who were and who are lawyers at the same time are powerful. They can debate or reason better than other professions. And at certain circumstances they can sue opponents or intimidate them with laws. I would say their law knowledge enriches them with defensive and offensive skills making them quite tough players in politic.
-
Originally posted by grandeur:And at certain circumstances they can sue opponents or intimidate them with laws.
-
MM LKY is a lawyer by training and through his legal expertise he has been able to draft new legislations that allowed him to make short-cuts in constitutional procedures that allow him effective control over Singapore for the last FORTY OVER YEARS.
Without any personal legal training, any subsequent Singapore leader will need a retinue of legal advisers to help draft new legislations that allow the Government to effectively implement public policies and BY-PASS EXISTING LAWS THAT PROTECT INDIVIDUAL INTERESTS AND RIGHTS under present Constitution and Laws passed by Parliament.
One example of "creative understanding and application of legal knowledge to govern, can be seen from the
"Optimisaing of Land Use through Innovative Legislations in Singapore"
prepared by Dr Alice Christudason,
Associate Professor,
Department of Real Estate, School of Design and Environment, NUS.
Her concluding remark reveal the "innovative legislation that impinge on the existing rights of Singaporean ::In the light of the Planning Act provisions, this paper has discussed the critical role played by the Urban Redevelopment Authority in the evolution of SingaporeÂ’s residential skyline.
The web of legislations that have been expertly thought out and passed - over the last forty five years by the expert "Rule of LAW" by the POWER OF ONE - has been neatly interwoven that clearly circumvent all the provisions of the Singapore Constitution; that allow the POWER OF ONE to secure their tight grip on Singapore even if they were to lose political control in any FUTURE election.
Together with the 1998 Master Plan and revisions to the Development Guide Plans which increased the storey heights typology and enhanced plot ratios, the way was paved for higher and greater density private residential developments.
Tying in neatly with these revisions were the controversial amendments to the Land Titles (Strata) Act in 1999.
On the one hand, with the potential of prematurely terminating freehold titles, these amendments were accused of abrogating fundamental rights of property ownership.
However, it was said by the Minister of State (Law) Professor Ho Peng Kee that the amendments would on the other hand, allow and encourage developers to take advantage of the enhanced plot ratios, help rejuvenate older developments and create more homes in prime areas. (Report of the Select Committee on the Land Titles (Strata) Amendment Bill (1999).
Based on the number and volume of transactions which have been facilitated todate pursuant to the amendments, this has borne out to be true.
From the following article, one can visualise the chaos that the POWER OF ONE can create if they were to lose power, much like when the Taiwan KMT lost an election to the DPP led by Chen Shui Bian.
"Singapore : Past, Present, Future" by Francis Seow -
QUOTE:"On the one hand, with the potential of prematurely terminating freehold titles, these amendments were accused of abrogating fundamental rights of property ownership."UNQUOTE"
So after gerrymandering the "One-man-one-vote universal franchise to "One-man-no-vote" GRC block representation, and discriminating citizenship into those who support the party will get flat upgrading and those who don't will be delayed, there may be further attempts to gerrymander the rights of owning property or monies in the bank.
There should be a referendum : (1) Whether elected government will be given the right to pass laws to bypass the rights of citizens stated in the national pledge or the constitution.
(2) Whether the government should be given the right to pass laws to circumvent or interfere with right of the private Land and Property Ownerhship laws e.g. refusing to surrender land or property upon tenancy or lease expiry. say 99-year tenant refusing to surrender to original Freehold Property, owner or 2-year HDB tenant refusing to surrender to HDB,
(3) Whether the citizens should also follow the government's breaking or disobeying rule of law to refuse to pay up debts or surrender driving licence to traffic police upon committing a traffic offence.
Do we call the current gerrymandering government? Can we be allowed to disobey the law (passed without consent of paymaster citizens) and not pay the ministers or civil servants their salaries?
Another question to be put up for referendum:"Will government go to war to recover the lands like Malaysian Railway land from foreign ownership by making them illegal. -
no wonder our changi prison is expanding further
-
Because they need lawyers as lawyers love to twist and turn against opponents.
-
Singapore's well known lawyers
Lee Kuan Yew - Good
David Marshall - Good
These lawyers ought to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt.
TT Durai - Shot himself in the foot
Mrs. Peanut Goh - a laughing stock
Subhas Anandan - hardly win a case
JB Jeyaratnam - made himself bankrupt -
Law-Making An insight.
A Bill is introduced and given a First Reading without a debate. Following its introduction, the Member in charge of the Bill will propose in Parliament that the Bill be read a second time. It is during this stage that MPs get an opportunity to debate on the principles of the Bills, examining its advantages and disadvantages. If MPs feel that the proposed law is beneficial to the country, they will vote in favour to proceed and the Bill will be given its Second Reading. The Bill then progresses to the Committee of the Whole Parliament or to a Select Committee comprising several MPs for it to be examined clause by clause. MPs who support the Bill in principle but do not agree with certain clauses can propose amendments to those clauses at this stage. Following its report back to the House, the Bill will go through its Third Reading where only minor amendments will be allowed before it is passed.
Most Bills passed by Parliament are scrutinised by the Presidential Council for Minority Rights which makes a report to the Speaker stating whether there is any differentiating measure in a Bill which affects any racial or religious community. If approved by the Council, the Bill will be assented to by the President before being gazetted in the Government Gazette to become a law.
More @ http://www.parliament.gov.sg
-
there was something someone wrote before...
Q: what do lawyers and politicians have in common?
A: their ability to lie with a straight face and total lack of ethics and morality
i think therein, is your answer? -
Disagree. The former are seekers of truth, upholders of law and justice. Politicians ... 'to have achieve an unbreakable records of garnering majority seats in the parliament shows mandate and support of current imcumbent party being a clean, efficient, ethical and moral members of the parliament.'Originally posted by the Bear:there was something someone wrote before...
Q: what do lawyers and politicians have in common?
A: their ability to lie with a straight face and total lack of ethics and morality
i think therein, is your answer?
-
i admire your innocence...
i wish i shared it but i have seen and read too much to know i cannot believe what you have written because it is definitely not the truth
alas...Originally posted by TooFree:Disagree. The former are seekers of truth, upholders of law and justice. Politicians ... 'to have achieve an unbreakable records of garnering majority seats in the parliament shows mandate and support of current imcumbent party being a clean, efficient, ethical and moral members of the parliament.' -
Unfortunately, while the intent of this piece of operative procedure is meant to work in the manner it is worded:Originally posted by TooFree:Law-Making An insight.
A Bill is introduced and given a First Reading without a debate. Following its introduction, the Member in charge of the Bill will propose in Parliament that the Bill be read a second time. It is during this stage that MPs get an opportunity to debate on the principles of the Bills, examining its advantages and disadvantages. If MPs feel that the proposed law is beneficial to the country, they will vote in favour to proceed and the Bill will be given its Second Reading. The Bill then progresses to the Committee of the Whole Parliament or to a Select Committee comprising several MPs for it to be examined clause by clause. MPs who support the Bill in principle but do not agree with certain clauses can propose amendments to those clauses at this stage. Following its report back to the House, the Bill will go through its Third Reading where only minor amendments will be allowed before it is passed.
Most Bills passed by Parliament are scrutinised by the Presidential Council for Minority Rights which makes a report to the Speaker stating whether there is any differentiating measure in a Bill which affects any racial or religious community. If approved by the Council, the Bill will be assented to by the President before being gazetted in the Government Gazette to become a law.
More @ http://www.parliament.gov.sg
the actual unfortunate reality is that these MPs have to observe the PARTY WHIP.
It is during this stage that MPs get an opportunity to debate on the principles of the Bills, examining its advantages and disadvantages. If MPs feel that the proposed law is beneficial to the country, they will vote in favour to proceed and the Bill will be given its Second Reading.
Can a Parliament that is dominated by ONE POLITICAL PARTY vote fairly to the benefit of Singaporeans who gave them their votes and elected these MPs to Parliament to represent Singaporean interests ?
Or will these MPs from the SINGLE DOMINATING POLITICAL PARTY suppress their INDIVIDUAL CONSCIENCE and vote according to the dictates of the Party Politics as directed by the POWER OF ONE ?