To advance to first-world government -amend the constitution
-
The Constitution usually sets out the basic rights of citizens and defines the role of government and its component branches.
What are the basic rights and why must they be protected? What is the role of the government? What should be done in order to advance as a progressive society?
Should the government be more proactive, dynamic and responsive to change or should it only be too concerned with legalistic controls to consolidate government's power to maintain its own concept of law and order?
Should the constitution serve the larger long-term interest of the state or the people.
The answer is obvious isn't it? Government is elected to serve the people to look after their interests and wellbeing through :
(1) administration,
(2) justice,
(3) maintaining democratic election processes
(4) implementing policies and decisions in tangible processes with accountability and responsibility which will promote citizens' social, cultural and economic vibrancy and competitiveness.
Specifically the constitution would establish the mechanic of government as consisting of three branches of government, namely (a) executive, (b) legislature, (c ) judiciary supported by a non-aligned civil service in the interest of all citizens.
Finally, the constitution should provide a certain clear framework of implementation of policies, decisions and administration, through involving citizens'participation in nation building ?
A review of the constution is overdue if it is to attain the above-stated elements of serving the people, clear defination of role and processes of implementation to avoid self-centred unaccountable or ad hoc governance.
Read more about the current shortcomings of leadership-centred governance which have essentially resulted in the "20 major policy errors of governemnt" as posted to the feedback unit.
If the government wants to run the country with people's participation or bring about a cosmopolitan and inclusive society then it must go beyond narrow leadership-centric look-good surpluses and all the window dressing statistical presentations.
There is a need to recognise that any form of legalistic governance based on extending controls through passing more laws and regulations like the GRCs or anti-internet and anti-freedom and anti-people regulations will not assure good corporate governance and will weaken the country.
There is obviously a much larger scope of government one that is empowering the collective talents, coordination, knowledge applications and innovation in every field in collective nation building, the key to the people's vibrancy and competitiveness.
Review of the constitution will give a fresh opportunity for progressing to first-world standards of governance to attain teamwork, effective coordination of different branches of the government, through accountable governance among the three branches i.e. legislature, executive, and judiciary. Through accountability and transparency there will be empowering and greater stability and law and order. There will be greater chance for all government to work with unity of purpose.
Try a different approach and people will come forward to help and serve and play their role to help build the country to a higher standard. -
if you study law you should know any changes to the constitution can be very troublesome and costly, its simply not very economical to do so
and besides, most people dont give a hoot about the constitution, let alone read it. it would be simply a waste of money and resources to alter it man you're really over-idealistic, stop blabbering about doing this and doing that over and over again, stick to one thread can anot -
Is it so so troublesome to change the Constitution - ESPECIALLY when you have in your control of Parliament with 82 out of all the 84 parliamentary seats ?Originally posted by vito_corleone:if you study law you should know any changes to the constitution can be very troublesome and costly, its simply not very economical to do so and besides, most people dont give a hoot about the constitution, let alone read it. it would be simply a waste of money and resources to alter it man you're really over-idealistic, stop blabbering about doing this and doing that over and over again, stick to one thread can anot
Not very economical ? This must be the "Understatement of the Year".
Does the POWER OF ONE care about the cost of changing the Constitution when it has decided to spent BILLIONS of Singapore Reserves making all kinds of foreign acquisitions ?
"A waste of money and resources" - does the POWER OF ONE care when its value for the US$500 Million lost in MICROPOLIS was dismissed in Parliament as "COST OF LEARNING" ?
Do you think that the POWER OF ONE care about costs when changes to the Constitution will enhance its grip on political power, and allow itself the full opportunity to perpetuate itself ?
"most people" - how wide is your net to include all in your group of "most people" - and what is the method or basis in determining or coming to this conclusion ? -
Constitution is about THE SINGLE MOST VITAL PIECE OF DOCUMENT that may be suitably set up to bring about RULE OF LAW, COORDINATION AND ACCOUNTABILITY IN GOVERNANCE OF A COUNTRY.Originally posted by vito_corleone:if you study law you should know any changes to the constitution can be very troublesome and costly, its simply not very economical to do so and besides, most people dont give a hoot about the constitution, let alone read it. it would be simply a waste of money and resources to alter it man you're really over-idealistic, stop blabbering about doing this and doing that over and over again, stick to one thread can anot
When we come to the bridge we can decide to cross it. The important thing is to realise the state we are in and see whether we can make the constitution work for all in nation building where leadership or single individuals or concepts of government have thus far been unable to do so.
Let us be open minded and broad-minded. Do not be too trivial or legalistic about the constitution. The fact that it may be difficult to amend should not mean that just because it is difficult one should not try.
My suggestion is not to be too legalistic or procedural and controversial about such a document. If the existing document is too vague and general over major issues of government such as its respective role or rights and freedoms, revision will make such matter clear and that will be good for nation building.
The most important consideration in reviewing the document is to set certain clear direction for cooperation among component parties i.e. citizens, government, ruling party and working of three branches for progress and prosperity in nation building.
There have been too many gerrymandering with the existing constitutions within the existing general laws affecting election, loss of citizens' basic rights and freedoms by ruling party in the name of racial harmony and law and order etc at the expense of social and cultural cohesion and mass participation in all aspects of nation building.
By providing clearly established rights and mechanism for coordination and redressing of practical problems among all parties, the rights and freedom of citizens can be suitably protected and ensured and protected so that all will be the winners - government find it easier to govern the country, and will obey rule of law and not legalistically try to circumvent rights and freedoms of citizens to deprive and sap the country of vibrancy and synergy.
Branches of government will work closely as a team and everyone respect the CONSTITUTION (with suitable provisions to redress any wrongs or infringements by any branch of government or anyone) as the binding pledge and not infringe it. There will then be loyalty of citizens who will be proud to enjoy being citizens and work for the nation. -
since you yourself said they control 82/84 seats, it is no longer an understatement since they have a majority of the seats and thus control, there is no need to amend anything as they hold the power to decide on any issue so long as it does not really go against the constitution and even if it may, people in the legal profession can always find a way around it and work from there. so can you provide me with a reliable statistic on the number of people who know about the constitution?Originally posted by Atobe:Is it so so troublesome to change the Constitution - ESPECIALLY when you have in your control of Parliament with 82 out of all the 84 parliamentary seats ?
Not very economical ? This must be the "Understatement of the Year".
Does the POWER OF ONE care about the cost of changing the Constitution when it has decided to spent BILLIONS of Singapore Reserves making all kinds of foreign acquisitions ?
"A waste of money and resources" - does the POWER OF ONE care when its value for the US$500 Million lost in MICROPOLIS was dismissed in Parliament as "COST OF LEARNING" ?
Do you think that the POWER OF ONE care about costs when changes to the Constitution will enhance its grip on political power, and allow itself the full opportunity to perpetuate itself ?
"most people" - how wide is your net to include all in your group of "most people" - and what is the method or basis in determining or coming to this conclusion ? and ho hee ho, if the singapore people choose to feed money to gic to invest in their flopped investments and if the ruling party chooses to spend money on something else, what can you do about it? lets be realistic shall we? and yes, the amendment of the constitution can cost millions, paying MP's to sit through sessions, putting it into documents statutes, issuing the newly passed rules to the courts and everyone involved anyway, a constitution isn't even necessary in order to be first world and guarantee the people rights eg. UK which has an unwritten constitution, the rights of the people are protected by the human rights act which was passed by parliament, further enhanced by the ECHR. a constitution can also be inflexible and unbeneficial to a country in quite a number of ways. want me to scan my LLB yr1 notes and show u? -
Robert's proposed amendments would make the document too detailed and it would then become inflexible.
There is no need to amend the Constitution. The Constitution is a written piece of paper. It is what you do with it that is more important. The Chinese has a Constitution as well, but how do they compare with the UK which does not have a written one?
regards,
obiterdicta -
The main issue government and people are contending with are:-Originally posted by ObiterDicta:Robert's proposed amendments would make the document too detailed and it would then become inflexible.
There is no need to amend the Constitution. The Constitution is a written piece of paper. It is what you do with it that is more important. The Chinese has a Constitution as well, but how do they compare with the UK which does not have a written one?
regards,
obiterdicta
(1) Government is able owing to generality in the current Constitution to pass laws of all kind gradually curbing and taking away people's freedoms and basic rights e.g. GRC election system removes one-man-one-vote right of citizens to choose the best individual representatives as they like, regulations to press laws resulting in licensing and ownership to the extent that press does not dare writing which reflect wrong doings in NKF for years and people's problems.
I do not propose to make the constitution a detailed document spelling out all working procedures and processes. However by being too general in the provisions, we are running the risk of one-man at the helm deciding on every nitty gritty in the provisions to suit his political agendas which may not coincide with that of the nation.
I only proposee that the constitution be suitably upgraded to provide clearly defined freedoms and rights of citizens and framework of government for greater accountability in the establishment of the system.
All that need is to incorporate overall useful framework for constitution to be workable with sufficient criteria and guidelines for decisions and policies to be made more collectively and accountably to prevent concentration of power in one man like the secretary general of the ruling party.
(2) The three branches of government are being dominated by the Sec'y General of the ruling party who makes all the policies and decisions to suit narrow agendas of control of freedoms and manipulate election processes, and political rights.
How to progress from where we are and upgrade from a one-man control of the whole pseudo-democratic system to a collective accountable good corporate governance is a bigger prorblem the people as a whole need to solve.
All other considerations like problems of defining the details are secondary and can be solved by a good "Definition" section of the Constitution. -
What matters more now is greater enforcement of the Constitution's original acts over the amendments. And greater check on any Constitutional Amendments.
-
Originally posted by vito_corleone:
Sorry, but as I had stated - the understatement of the year was your remark that -
since you yourself said they control 82/84 seats, it is no longer an understatement since they have a majority of the seats and thus control,
"any changes to the constitution can be very troublesome and costly, its simply not very economical to do so "
Surprisingly, the POWER OF ONE do not seem to think along the same simplistic lines that you have now made, as to ensure that they have a perpetual grip on power, the Constitution has seen countless amendments with new legislations and provisionals that it makes a mockery of the First Defination stated in the Singapore Constitution.
there is no need to amend anything as they hold the power to decide on any issue so long as it does not really go against the constitution and even if it may, people in the legal profession can always find a way around it and work from there. -
CONTINUATION 2:
Did you miss this in my post in Robertteh's thread : "Definition of True Democracy" Page 35
Extract from the Singapore Consitution
Can there be Democracy for Singapore, when the Constitution has been drafted with so many contradicting provisions ?
Article 12 Equality
(1) All persons are equal before the law and entitled to the equal protection of the law.
(2) Except as expressly authorized by this Constitution, there shall be no discrimination against citizens of Singapore on the ground only of religion, race, descent or place of birth in any law or in the appointment to any office or employment under a public authority or in the administration of any law relating to the acquisition, holding, or disposition of property or the establishing or carrying on of any trade, business, profession, vocation or employment.
(3) This article does not invalidate or prohibit
(a) any provision regulating personal law; or
(b) any provision or practice restricting office or employment connected with the affairs of any religion, or of an institution managed by a group professing any religion, to persons professing that religion.
Article 13 Prohibition of Banishment and Freedom of Movement
(1) No citizen of Singapore shall be banished or excluded from Singapore.
(2) Subject to any law relating to the security of Singapore or any part thereof, public order, public health or the punishment of offenders, every citizen of Singapore has the right to move freely throughout Singapore and to reside in any part thereof.
Article 14 Freedom of Speech, Assembly, and Association
(1) Subject to clauses (2) and (3)
(a) every citizen of Singapore has the right to freedom of speech and expression;
(b) all citizens of Singapore have the right to assemble peaceably and without arms; and
(c) all citizens of Singapore have the right to form associations.
(2) Parliament may by law impose
(a) on the rights conferred by clause (1)(a), such restrictions as it considers necessary or expedient in the interest of the security of Singapore or any part thereof, friendly relations with other countries, public order or morality and restrictions designed to protect the privileges of Parliament or to provide against contempt of court, defamation or incitement to any offence;
(b) on the right conferred by clause (1)(b), such restrictions as it considers necessary or expedient in the interest of the security of Singapore or any part thereof or public order; and
(c) on the right conferred by clause (1)(c), such restrictions as it considers necessary or expedient in the interest of the security of Singapore or any part thereof, public order or morality.
(3) Restrictions on the right to form associations conferred by clause (1)(c) may also be imposed by any law relating to labor or education.
Article 151 Restrictions on Preventive Detention
(1) Where any law or ordinance made or promulgated in pursuance of this Part provides for preventive detention
(a) the authority on whose order any person is detained under that law or ordinance shall as soon as may be, inform him of the grounds for his detention and, subject to clause (3), the allegations of fact on which the order is based and shall give him the opportunity of making representations against the order as soon as may be; and
(b) no citizen of Singapore shall be detained under that law or ordinance for a period exceeding 3 months unless an advisory board constituted as mentioned in clause (2) has considered any representations made by him under paragraph (a) and made recommendations thereon to the President.
(2) An advisory board constituted for the purposes of this article shall consist of a chairman, who shall be appointed by the President and who shall be or have been, or be qualified to be, a Judge of the Supreme Court, and two other members, who shall be appointed by the President after consultation with the Chief Justice.
(3) This article does not require any authority to disclose facts the disclosure of which would, in its opinion, be against the national interest.
(4) Where an advisory board constituted for the purposes of this article recommends the release of any person under any law or ordinance made or promulgated in pursuance of this Part, the person shall not be detained or further detained without the concurrence of the President if the recommendations of the advisory board are not accepted by the authority on whose advice or order the person is detained.
One part of the Constitution will guarantee some benefits, while the same is negated by another part of the Constitution - as can be seen in Article 14 Freedom of Speech, Assembly and Association.
It is clear that the POWER OF ONE intend to monopolise the Law as it find suitable to fit its own agenda.
Does the POWER OF ONE respect the Constitution, or is it another window dressing tool that it find troublesome but necessary to accomodate its effort in putting up a good front.
Article 12 Equal Protection - guarantees everyone as being equal before the Law, and entitled to the equal protection of the Law.
Unfortunately, the political trials of the past three decades have shown the tardiness of the Judiciary System in its dispensing of justice that clearly turned a blind eye towards its constitutional responsibilities. -
CONTINUATION 3
Article 13 - Prohibits the banishment and Freedom of Movement - yet the POWER OF ONE has been able to banish Singapore Citizens by disfranchising Singaporeans of their Citizenship Rights if they were to stay away from Singapore for more then TEN YEARS.
Banishment need not be away from the main island of Singapore and with restricted movement imposed - as was the case of Chia Thye Poh
Having been blindsided by the political manouvres in Parliamentary procedures, the Barisan Sosialis took their case to the Streets of Singapore through public demonstration - (non violent). Chia claimed that he was a Member of Parliament when he was arrested, although the Official Statement claimed otherwise.
Article 151 Restrictions on Preventive Detention - has the POWER OF ONE over-reached itself in detaining Chia Thye Poh for 23 years in solitary confinement, after which restrained his movement by banishing him to Sentosa Island and forcing him to earn a meagre income as a translator to feed himself ?
Does the POWER OF ONE respect the Singapore Constitution ?
If it does respect the provisions in the Singapore Constitutions, it should have been the earliest signatory to the UNITED NATIONS sponsored International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights when it was adopted in 1966 by the United Nations.
Ironically, Singapore joined the UN in 1965 - immediately after being kicked out of Malaysia, and in 1966 - Chia Thye Poh was arrested.
Should we be surprised to the intention of the POWER OF ONE, when the Peoples' Republic of China had voluntarily become a signatory party to this Internation Convenant on Civil and Political Rights in 1998, and Singapore is still holding out ?
==========================================================================
Should it not be for you to clarify the statistics that you are depending on in making your statement that "most people dont give a hoot about the constitution" ?
so can you provide me with a reliable statistic on the number of people who know about the constitution? and ho hee ho,
Do Singaporeans have any choice but to feed money to the GLC, who in turn will handover their profits to GIC and Temasek ?
if the singapore people choose to feed money to gic to invest in their flopped investments and if the ruling party chooses to spend money on something else, what can you do about it?
Every and any services that are needed by Singaporeans are monopolised, controlled, and owned by the Government through all the various Government Linked Companies.
Do Singaporeans have any choice ?
Being realistic do not require exageration.
lets be realistic shall we? and yes, the amendment of the constitution can cost millions, paying MP's to sit through sessions, putting it into documents statutes, issuing the newly passed rules to the courts and everyone involved
Our Singapore MPs are paid to sit in Parliament and - instead of defending the Sacred Rights and Interests of the Singaporeans who elected them into Parliament - they have ignored the changes to the Singapore Constitution and sit daily in Parliament to crack jokes about the Alternative Parties, or discuss mundane issues, and accept the simplistic explanations for mistakes made with Public Funds.
Are you not confusing yourself ?
anyway, a constitution isn't even necessary in order to be first world and guarantee the people rights eg. UK which has an unwritten constitution, the rights of the people are protected by the human rights act which was passed by parliament, further enhanced by the ECHR. a constitution
UK has an "unwritten constitution" ?
Even if we accept your statement on its face value, the fact remains - according to your statement - that the UK Parliament had passed a Human Rights Act, which is further enhanced by the ECHR.
Do Singaporeans have this double protection from our Own Parliament or an organisation such as the ECHR - that protect Singaporean Rights as Humans - even as we disillusion ourselves as a "First World Country" ?
Guess a legal trained mind will always attempt to twist a nail on its head to argue in whatever way to make any point - if you need to depend on your LLB yr1 notes to discuss this issue, I am not sure if you can get very far.
can also be inflexible and unbeneficial to a country in quite a number of ways. want me to scan my LLB yr1 notes and show u? 
Are we discussing on the inflexibility of a Constitution that is unbeneficial to a Country; or is this thread about "To advance to First World : amend the Constitution" - by restoring the Human Rights to Singaporeans ?
To humour your position - YES, certainly the POWER OF ONE has found the original draft of the Constitution inflexible to the extent that POWER OF ONE is answerable to Parliament and to the People.
It has done so - to the extent that even its own Members of Parliament are NOT ALLOWED to vote according to their own personal conscience, and simply to follow Party Directives as instructed by the Elite POWER OF ONE.
It changed the Constitution to the extent that Alternative Parties find it impossible to operate and garner support (financially, infrastructurally, and morally) from Singaporeans.
The POWER OF ONE changed the Constitutions to give itself wide powers to control the President's Office, the Judiciary, the Civil Service, the Public Services, Security Forces; and ULTIMATELY, with the self-given powers, it constantly changed and refined the Rules of Politics in Singapore. -
Originally posted by Atobe:
who allowed the POWER OF ONE to come into a position of power in the first place? the people of singapore. who has repeatedly voted for THE POWER OF ONE to stay in power? the people of singapore. the laws of government dictate that the political party with the strongest mandate, regardless of how it achieved that amndate hold the most say in government. this itself IS DEMOCRACY. so does the constitution forbid the POWER OF ONE?
[b]CONTINUATION 3
Article 13 - Prohibits the banishment and Freedom of Movement - yet the POWER OF ONE has been able to banish Singapore Citizens by disfranchising Singaporeans of their Citizenship Rights if they were to stay away from Singapore for more then TEN YEARS.
Banishment need not be away from the main island of Singapore and with restricted movement imposed - as was the case of Chia Thye Poh
Having been blindsided by the political manouvres in Parliamentary procedures, the Barisan Sosialis took their case to the Streets of Singapore through public demonstration - (non violent). Chia claimed that he was a Member of Parliament when he was arrested, although the Official Statement claimed otherwise.
Article 151 Restrictions on Preventive Detention - has the POWER OF ONE over-reached itself in detaining Chia Thye Poh for 23 years in solitary confinement, after which restrained his movement by banishing him to Sentosa Island and forcing him to earn a meagre income as a translator to feed himself ?
Does the POWER OF ONE respect the Singapore Constitution ?
If it does respect the provisions in the Singapore Constitutions, it should have been the earliest signatory to the UNITED NATIONS sponsored International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights when it was adopted in 1966 by the United Nations.
Ironically, Singapore joined the UN in 1965 - immediately after being kicked out of Malaysia, and in 1966 - Chia Thye Poh was arrested.
Should we be surprised to the intention of the POWER OF ONE, when the Peoples' Republic of China had voluntarily become a signatory party to this Internation Convenant on Civil and Political Rights in 1998, and Singapore is still holding out ?
==========================================================================
Guess a legal trained mind will always attempt to twist a nail on its head to argue in whatever way to make any point - if you need to depend on your LLB yr1 notes to discuss this issue, I am not sure if you can get very far.
Are we discussing on the inflexibility of a Constitution that is unbeneficial to a Country; or is this thread about "To advance to First World : amend the Constitution" - by restoring the Human Rights to Singaporeans ?
To humour your position - YES, certainly the POWER OF ONE has found the original draft of the Constitution inflexible to the extent that POWER OF ONE is answerable to Parliament and to the People.
It has done so - to the extent that even its own Members of Parliament are NOT ALLOWED to vote according to their own personal conscience, and simply to follow Party Directives as instructed by the Elite POWER OF ONE.
It changed the Constitution to the extent that Alternative Parties find it impossible to operate and garner support (financially, infrastructurally, and morally) from Singaporeans.
The POWER OF ONE changed the Constitutions to give itself wide powers to control the President's Office, the Judiciary, the Civil Service, the Public Services, Security Forces; and ULTIMATELY, with the self-given powers, it constantly changed and refined the Rules of Politics in Singapore.[/b] if it indeed does allow this person to seize power it is not the fault of the person but a flaw in the constitution and the governing body as a whole. no matter how you amend the constitution parliament or whoever controls it can pass an act to either void an article in the constitution or re-write it as seen in the case of the US, hence it does not make any sense, be it monetary or not, to amend the constitution int the first place because it will not prevent consolidation of power and most certainly not aid a country into progressing into a "1st world status", now one must ask oneself, what constitutes the status of "first world", a flourishing economy? developed infrastructure? democratic government? so far "first world" country has satisfied all conditions, few have even come close eg. switzerland, the scandinavian countries. free and transparent and democratic government? constitution abiding? many countries have that, they're not first world. so does it actually make any sense to even abide by the constitution in the first place let alone amend it? -
since they amended it, it does not violate the constitution. where's the mockery to be found?Originally posted by Atobe:Surprisingly, the POWER OF ONE do not seem to think along the same simplistic lines that you have now made, as to ensure that they have a perpetual grip on power, the Constitution has seen countless amendments with new legislations and provisionals that it makes a mockery of the First Defination stated in the Singapore Constitution. Republic of Singapore
*3. Singapore shall be a sovereign republic to be known as the Republic of Singapore.
*Section 2 (1) (d), Constitution (Amendment) Act 1965 (No. 8 of 1965) and the Republic of Singapore Independence Act 1965 (No. 9 of 1965).
Supremacy of Constitution
4. This Constitution is the supreme law of the Republic of Singapore and any law enacted by the Legislature after the commencement of this Constitution which is inconsistent with this Constitution shall, to the extent of the inconsistency, be void.
Amendment of Constitution
5. —(1) Subject to this Article and Article 8, the provisions of this Constitution may be amended by a law enacted by the Legislature.
(2) A Bill seeking to amend any provision in this Constitution shall not be passed by Parliament unless it has been supported on Second and Third Readings by the votes of not less than two-thirds of the total number of the elected Members of Parliament referred to in Article 39 (1) (a).
*(2A) Unless the President, acting in his discretion, otherwise directs the Speaker in writing, a Bill seeking to amend —
*Article 5 (2A) was not in operation at the date of this Reprint. This Article repeals former Article 5 (2A) (enacted by Act 5/91) which Article was also not in operation at the date of its repeal by Act 41/96.
(a) this clause or Article 5A;
(b) any provision in Part IV;
(c) any provision in Chapter 1 of Part V or Article 93A;
(d) Article 65 or 66; or
(e) any other provision in this Constitution which authorises the President to act in his discretion,
shall not be passed by Parliament unless it has also been supported at a national referendum by not less than two-thirds of the total number of votes cast by the electors registered under the Parliamentary Elections Act (Cap. 21. -
How would you understand the term "First World" ?Originally posted by vito_corleone:
who allowed the POWER OF ONE to come into a position of power in the first place? the people of singapore. who has repeatedly voted for THE POWER OF ONE to stay in power? the people of singapore. the laws of government dictate that the political party with the strongest mandate, regardless of how it achieved that amndate hold the most say in government. this itself IS DEMOCRACY. so does the constitution forbid the POWER OF ONE? if it indeed does allow this person to seize power it is not the fault of the person but a flaw in the constitution and the governing body as a whole. [/quote]
Can one blame a piece of paper for the flaws of a power hungry person ?
Yes, it is the people of Singapore who has repeatedly voted for the POWER OF ONE to stay in power - but unfortunately, it is only about ONE THIRD of the population in the CONTESTED CONSTITUENCIES that had cast their votes.
There remains the OTHER ONE THIRD ELIGIBLE CITIZENS - who did not vote.
Can we blame the Constitution when the POWER HUNGRY person abuses its position by quietly changing the various articles of the Constitutions to allow itself greater powers then originally allowed for ?
This can be equal to a breach of trust - almost equal to the Lawyer who embezzled money placed in his trust by the UNSUSPECTING clients.
Do you think that in the US circumstance, either one political party can be allowed to change the Constitution to benefit any single party without the concensus of the other political party ?
no matter how you amend the constitution parliament or whoever controls it can pass an act to either void an article in the constitution or re-write it as seen in the case of the US, hence it does not make any sense, be it monetary or not, to amend the constitution int the first place because it will not prevent consolidation of power and most certainly not aid a country into progressing into a "1st world status",
Will the US Citizens calmly observe and remain immobile towards any clear attempt to change the Constitution to usurp power ?
When a deadlock occur in any agreement to a piece of legislation, the opinion of the US public will be sought in some form of referendum.
Even in Switzerland, any important legislation will have the Swiss Citizens' clear understanding and contribution by way of a National Referendum.
It is in a Country with an OPEN Society that has information available that can lead to Thinking Citizens contributing to events that will shape their own Lives.This is what Civil Society is all about.
[quote]
now one must ask oneself, what constitutes the status of "first world", a flourishing economy? developed infrastructure? democratic government? so far "first world" country has satisfied all conditions, few have even come close eg. switzerland, the scandinavian countries. free and transparent and democratic government? constitution abiding? many countries have that, they're not first world. so does it actually make any sense to even abide by the constitution in the first place let alone amend it?
Is it referring to a political, economic, industrial, cultural or military power status ?
Merriam-Webster has it as "the highly developed industrialized nations oftern considered the westernized countries of the world".
Some others have modified and removed the classification "Western, industrialized, non-communist countries" - which was previously accepted criteria, "but in view of the emergence of Japan as an economic power and the rising status of Russia and China, 'industrialized' is probably the only remaining valid criterium for a 'First World Country' at this time".
Others have defined 'First World' as "the richest and technologically most developed countries of the world, used in contrast to Third World".
You must be joking if you consider that Switzerland and the Scandinavian Countries belong to those few that come close to having a flourishing economy, a developed infrastructure, or less a democratic government.
These countries HAVE a flourishing economy, a developed infrastructure, certainly have a democratic and transparent democratic government.
These countries have politicians who will consult their constituents and citizens on those few but IMPORTANT CHANGES to the Legislations and Constitutions by way of REFERENDUMS.
The Politicians DO NOT USURP the Citizens' Rights for the over-simplistic and self-serving reason that the Citizen's vote of confidence allow the Politician to change the law for the Citizens' benefit.
If a society do not have any respect for basic law, can a society exist.
If a Nation do not have any respect for a Constitution that serves as the defining format, can a Nation exist ?
If the Politicians make no sense to respect the Constitution, does it make any sense for the Citizens to respect the Laws that are created by the Politicians to protect their own interests ?
Is Singapore any closer to the reality of being a First World, or is it a self-delusionary claim ? -
Originally posted by vito_corleone:
The mockery is in all the legislations that have been passed into Law even though it do not comply with the Section dealing with the SUPREMACY OF CONSTITUTION
Original post by Atobe:
Surprisingly, the POWER OF ONE do not seem to think along the same simplistic lines that you have now made, as to ensure that they have a perpetual grip on power, the Constitution has seen countless amendments with new legislations and provisionals that it makes a mockery of the First Defination stated in the Singapore Constitution.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
since they amended it, it does not violate the constitution. where's the mockery to be found? Republic of Singapore
*3. Singapore shall be a sovereign republic to be known as the Republic of Singapore.
*Section 2 (1) (d), Constitution (Amendment) Act 1965 (No. 8 of 1965) and the Republic of Singapore Independence Act 1965 (No. 9 of 1965).
Supremacy of Constitution
4. This Constitution is the supreme law of the Republic of Singapore and any law enacted by the Legislature after the commencement of this Constitution which is inconsistent with this Constitution shall, to the extent of the inconsistency, be void.
Amendment of Constitution
5. —(1) Subject to this Article and Article 8, the provisions of this Constitution may be amended by a law enacted by the Legislature.
(2) A Bill seeking to amend any provision in this Constitution shall not be passed by Parliament unless it has been supported on Second and Third Readings by the votes of not less than two-thirds of the total number of the elected Members of Parliament referred to in Article 39 (1) (a).
*(2A) Unless the President, acting in his discretion, otherwise directs the Speaker in writing, a Bill seeking to amend —
*Article 5 (2A) was not in operation at the date of this Reprint. This Article repeals former Article 5 (2A) (enacted by Act 5/91) which Article was also not in operation at the date of its repeal by Act 41/96.
(a) this clause or Article 5A;
(b) any provision in Part IV;
(c) any provision in Chapter 1 of Part V or Article 93A;
(d) Article 65 or 66; or
(e) any other provision in this Constitution which authorises the President to act in his discretion,
shall not be passed by Parliament unless it has also been supported at a national referendum by not less than two-thirds of the total number of votes cast by the electors registered under the Parliamentary Elections Act (Cap. 21.
In Article 5 (2A) Clause (e) - it was stated that - even if any other parts of the Constitution authorises the President to act in his discretion, it SHALL NOT BE PASSED by Parliament UNLESS it has also been supported at a NATIONAL REFERENDUM.
If the President is not allowed to act on his own discretion, is it NOT A MOCKERY that the Legislature can be allowed to pass laws that are in direct conflict with the SUPREMACY OF CONSTITUTION - and WITHOUT the concesus of a NATIONAL REFERENDUM ? -
since the governing body is voted into power by a pretty large margin of the population, regardless of how it achieved the votes, is that not a referendum itself? and since they supposedly "represent the majority of the population, an issue which is somewhat dubious, does the majority of the population sanction whatever decisions they might make indirectly? told you those bastards have a way of finding loopholes, no legal document is foolproof
-
Originally posted by Atobe:
1) so who's to blame? those who did not make their vote count, however at fault the power-hungry might be
How would you understand the term [b]"First World" ?
Is it referring to a political, economic, industrial, cultural or military power status ?
Merriam-Webster has it as "the highly developed industrialized nations oftern considered the westernized countries of the world".
Some others have modified and removed the classification "Western, industrialized, non-communist countries" - which was previously accepted criteria, "but in view of the emergence of Japan as an economic power and the rising status of Russia and China, 'industrialized' is probably the only remaining valid criterium for a 'First World Country' at this time".
Others have defined 'First World' as "the richest and technologically most developed countries of the world, used in contrast to Third World".
You must be joking if you consider that Switzerland and the Scandinavian Countries belong to those few that come close to having a flourishing economy, a developed infrastructure, or less a democratic government.
These countries HAVE a flourishing economy, a developed infrastructure, certainly have a democratic and transparent democratic government.
These countries have politicians who will consult their constituents and citizens on those few but IMPORTANT CHANGES to the Legislations and Constitutions by way of REFERENDUMS.
The Politicians DO NOT USURP the Citizens' Rights for the over-simplistic and self-serving reason that the Citizen's vote of confidence allow the Politician to change the law for the Citizens' benefit.
If a society do not have any respect for basic law, can a society exist.
If a Nation do not have any respect for a Constitution that serves as the defining format, can a Nation exist ?
If the Politicians make no sense to respect the Constitution, does it make any sense for the Citizens to respect the Laws that are created by the Politicians to protect their own interests ?
Is Singapore any closer to the reality of being a First World, or is it a self-delusionary claim ?
[/b]
2)breach of trust? according to the law of contract: Offer: a contract comes into existence where there is a definate offer by one and an unqualified/unconditional acceptance of precisely that offer by the other party. Acceptance: an enforceable contract would not come into existence unless there is an acceptance corresponding with the terms of the proposed in the offer. in this case, the people, by choosing to do so, whether they were given much of a choice or not, voted and "accepted" this offer to contract and put the power-hungry in power. not much fault to be found in that, right?
3)too bad for the "thinking" american people, majority wins. bush and his croonies have somehow managed to garner enough support to stay in power by appealing to the numerous conservatives living in the middle of the country, who also happen to form the bulk of the american population. despite attempts to stop him he and his gang have managed to consolidate even more power eg. patriot act, NSA phone taps without anybody stopping him.
4)does the singapore population in general have the intellect and responsibility like the swiss? the swiss value their rights and have acted to protect it, has the singapore population done so? nope, they only have themselves to blame.
5)a nation can exist without a constitution, or at least a written one eg UK if it has a developed enough system of legislative organisation that is found scattered in so many different documents
and when did i ever say singapore was "first world"? its more like a country with a first world economy and efficiency coupled with 3rd world corruption and governing ethics -
Exactly. What you have mentioned does not necessarily require amendments to the Constitution. They can be achieved by the passing of appropriate Statutes.Originally posted by robertteh:The main issue government and people are contending with are:-
(1) Government is able owing to generality in the current Constitution to pass laws of all kind gradually curbing and taking away people's freedoms and basic rights e.g. GRC election system removes one-man-one-vote right of citizens to choose the best individual representatives as they like, regulations to press laws resulting in licensing and ownership to the extent that press does not dare writing which reflect wrong doings in NKF for years and people's problems.
I do not propose to make the constitution a detailed document spelling out all working procedures and processes. However by being too general in the provisions, we are running the risk of one-man at the helm deciding on every nitty gritty in the provisions to suit his political agendas which may not coincide with that of the nation.
I only proposee that the constitution be suitably upgraded to provide clearly defined freedoms and rights of citizens and framework of government for greater accountability in the establishment of the system.
All that need is to incorporate overall useful framework for constitution to be workable with sufficient criteria and guidelines for decisions and policies to be made more collectively and accountably to prevent concentration of power in one man like the secretary general of the ruling party. -
Originally posted by vito_corleone:
Should we not blame those who are better educated amongst the Singaporeans - who will not agree with the politics of the Ruling Political Party; and yet will insist that the Alternative Parties are worthless despite the new talents who dare to make their cause with them.
1) so who's to blame? those who did not make their vote count, however at fault the power-hungry might be
What should they be called ?
What about the Lawyer offering his impeccable and reputable services to the unwitting customer, trusted by the Law Society and the unwitting customer to keep their monies, but paying himself the extraordinary bonus from the customers' monies ?
2)breach of trust? according to the law of contract: Offer: a contract comes into existence where there is a definate offer by one and an unqualified/unconditional acceptance of precisely that offer by the other party. Acceptance: an enforceable contract would not come into existence unless there is an acceptance corresponding with the terms of the proposed in the offer. in this case, the people, by choosing to do so, whether they were given much of a choice or not, voted and "accepted" this offer to contract and put the power-hungry in power. not much fault to be found in that, right?
There was an offer, it was accepted, then the Lawyer began to work according to his own sets of principles.
Too bad for Bush that there exist a TRULY INDEPENDENT and LEARNED JUDICIARY that has ruled against the Patriot Act, NSA phone taps, AS WELL AS against the Guantanam Prison - AND all done in the INTEREST OF THE People's Constitutional and Human Rights.
3)too bad for the "thinking" american people, majority wins. bush and his croonies have somehow managed to garner enough support to stay in power by appealing to the numerous conservatives living in the middle of the country, who also happen to form the bulk of the american population. despite attempts to stop him he and his gang have managed to consolidate even more power eg. patriot act, NSA phone taps without anybody stopping him.
Somehow they do not make any racist distinctions whether the Constitutional and Human Rights belong to its own US Citizens or to those accused as Terrorists.
The US Constitution is SUPREME and rules over all kinds of political dogma.
Too BAD FOR SINGAPORE, that the Educated Elites will not exercise their functional positions to counter-balance the abuses of the Governing Elites.
What has the Swiss done to protect their rights for themselves, when those elected by the Swiss Citizens to represent and protect the Swiss interest in the Swiss Parliament and Government DID NOT FAIL THAT GIVEN TRUST ?
4)does the singapore population in general have the intellect and responsibility like the swiss? the swiss value their rights and have acted to protect it, has the singapore population done so? nope, they only have themselves to blame.
When those amongst the Elite Singaporeans - who have the intellect and given the responsibility to sit in the high office of the Executive, the Judiciary, and the Legislature - will subjugate their principles and accept the Directions and Instructions from the Elite POWER OF ONE, and with NO WILL to challenge the Elite POWER OF ONE, can the lesser Singaporeans be in any position to do so ?
CSJ from the SDP seems to be doing so and with some admirers and supporters from the lesser Singaporeans - what about the educated Singaporeans ?
Will you even lend him some morale support ?
Should it not be correct that a Constitution is a definition of the functions, responsibilities and rights of the individuals that make up a country ?
5)a nation can exist without a constitution, or at least a written one eg UK if it has a developed enough system of legislative organisation that is found scattered in so many different documents
Where on earth did you get the idea that UK as a nation can exist without a written constitution ?
UK has a history far longer than Singapore's and yet they have a Magna Carter that laid the foundation for the modern English Constitution in removing the abusive powers of King John towards his people.
The UK Constitution had evolved through its history, and certainly exist NOT in one CONSOLIDATED DOCUMENT but consists of several different elements "and is often referred to as an unwritten consitution. However, many parts of the constitution ARE INDEED IN WRITTEN FORM, it would be more accurate to refer to the BODY OF BRITISH CONSTITUTION as an uncodified constitution ".
The Singapore Constitution and the US CONSTITUTION - both being EX-British Crown Colonies - are more fortunate in having a CONSOLIDATED PIECE OF WORKS that reflect the respective History of each nation.
The US Constitution has remain largely intact with amendments that ADVANCES the written principles of the Founding Fathers who penned the various statements that formed the US Constitution.
Unfortunately, for the Singapore Constitution, those who were given the privilege to Govern Singapore had raped the Singapore Constitution with amendments that are REGRESSIVE and grinds against the core principles of the Constitution.
Without saying that "singapore WAS
and when did i ever say singapore was "first world"? its more like a country with a first world economy and efficiency coupled with 3rd world corruption and governing ethics 
"first world" - your participation in this thread already had you mention that "anyway a constitution isn't even necessary in order to be first world and guarantee the peoples' rights". .
Should we not accept your position that Singapore Government can be "First World" - with or without a Constitution ?
No one is desparate here for your change of heart.
-
Originally posted by Atobe:
1)the issue is, have the alternatives proved themselves? as for what do we call "them", i'd say politically apathetic
Without saying that "singapore [b]WAS "first world" - your participation in this thread already had you mention that "anyway a constitution isn't even necessary in order to be first world and guarantee the peoples' rights". .
Should we not accept your position that Singapore Government can be "First World" - with or without a Constitution ?
No one is desparate here for your change of heart.
[/b]
2)whatever the intent, if a contract was made between 2 willing parties, it is unrevokable. an offer can only be revoked prior to acceptance.
3)patriot act was renewed
4)yes the US constitution is supreme but the ruling elite has amended it to suit their interests and it still reigns supreme. eg. you cant own guns in many places although the constitution states that every citizen has the right to bear arms they "amended" that right with some nonsense "safety" amendment
5)who in the right frame of mind would give support to monkeys like CSJ? he doesnt even know how to fend for himself and plan, clashing head-on with a stronger foe is pure folly. empty bravado does not work. i wouldnt trust him to deal on singapore's behalf with regard to national affairs. WP is somewhat rising but they still lack experience and political competence, give them some time and they'll mature into a more potent force, provided more "capable" people join their ranks.
6)the US was never a crown colony. the "constitution that the US adopted was an idea borrowed from the french. the english legal system slowly evolved from the common law that william of normandy introduced, coupled with traditions and centuries of trials and evolution, king reigned supreme, king appointed judges, applied common law to replace christian law, introduced equity when common law had loopholes,parliament took over and wanted to write the laws on justification that it represented the people, king refused blahblah yadayada there's chapters and chapters about how it finally evolved into the modern day english legal system, now known as common law reasoning and institutions...,there's helluva a damned chunk regarding english legal histroy we shall not go too deep into that
7)your last passage makes no damned sense -
Originally posted by vito_corleone:
How can the alternatives prove themselves when no opportunities have been extended to them ?
1)the issue is, have the alternatives proved themselves? as for what do we call "them", i'd say politically apathetic
It is the perennial "chicken and egg" situation - which comes first : "the opportunity to be given before proof of experience can be shown", or "show proof of experience before the opportunity is given" ?
It is much like Chia Thye Poh being locked up for 35 years behind bars and demanding the proof from LKY on the accusations made, but no open trial was ever given for Chia to prove his innocence of the accusations made by LKY.
"Political apathetic" ? These guys are not apathetic to politics as they are immersed in political debate but simply indecisive when called, only to act out the "kiasu and kiasi" Singaporean syndrome.
"Kiasu" - as they do not want to lose out on the possible upgrading works.
"Kiasi" - as much as they want to get rid of the oppressive economic and socio-political climate in Singapore, they remain afraid to move into unknown grounds; preferring to accept "the devil whom they are familiar with, rather then risk some other devil whom they have no feeling for".
You are much kinder to this bunch of indecisive Singaporeans, as I will call them no better then "fence-sitting fools".
Do Singaporeans have any self-respect left, or is it mere false selfish pride that remained ? Is this not a failure of 45 years of Government Policy that resulted in a nation of timid people ?
Character - the willingness to accept responsibility for one's own life - is the source from which self respect springs.
Joan Didion (1934 - ), "Slouching Towards Bethlehem"
Forming characters! Whose? Our own or others? Both. And in that momentous fact lies the peril and responsibility of our existence.
Elihu Burritt
Your point may be correct that 2 willing parties made a contract that is unrevokable, however that does not make the illegal acts of 1 party contrary to the implied and stated contents any more legal.
2)whatever the intent, if a contract was made between 2 willing parties, it is unrevokable. an offer can only be revoked prior to acceptance.
Are you contending that it was legal for the lawyer to walk away with his clients' monies, as they have both entered into a "contract of willing parties" for him to receive the monies ?
It was given a good amount of airing in a First World Political Environment that made a First World Government.
3)patriot act was renewed
It was renewed with the interest of all parties - the Executive, the Legislature, the Judiciary, and the Citizens.
"Nonsense 'safety' " ?
4)yes the US constitution is supreme but the ruling elite has amended it to suit their interests and it still reigns supreme. eg. you cant own guns in many places although the constitution states that every citizen has the right to bear arms they "amended" that right with some nonsense "safety" amendment
The US "Gun Law" amended to "suit their interests" ?
Or was the "Gun Law" amended to allow a "hold-over" period for background checks to be made on the intended gun owner - for the SAKE OF THE SAFETY OF THE COMMUNITY that the intended gun owner has no criminal background ?
It was a COMPROMISE between the gun owners and the community at large, and not amended for the interests of the gun owners benefit.
If CSJ irks you so badly, lets put him aside, lets work on your statement concerning the OTHER Alternative Parties.
5)who in the right frame of mind would give support to monkeys like CSJ? he doesnt even know how to fend for himself and plan, clashing head-on with a stronger foe is pure folly. empty bravado does not work. i wouldnt trust him to deal on singapore's behalf with regard to national affairs. WP is somewhat rising but they still lack experience and political competence, give them some time and they'll mature into a more potent force, provided more "capable" people join their ranks.
Who do you think will "give them some time" and how will they "mature into a more potent force" when the opportunity to pick up experience is not given ?
Is this not the "chicken and egg" situation again ?
Capability is only developed when one has the opportunity to pick up experience; and experience is accumulated when there is opportunity given to do so. Why be so "wishy-washy" with the Alternative Parties ?
People grow through experience if they meet life honestly and courageously. This is how character is built.
Eleanor Roosevelt (1884 - 1962), My Day
You cannot acquire experience by making experiments. You cannot create experience. You must undergo it.
Albert Camus (1913 - 1960)
"US was never a Crown Colony" - which history book did you use to come to this conclusion ?
6)the US was never a crown colony. the "constitution that the US adopted was an idea borrowed from the french. the english legal system slowly evolved from the common law that william of normandy introduced, coupled with traditions and centuries of trials and evolution, king reigned supreme, king appointed judges, applied common law to replace christian law, introduced equity when common law had loopholes,parliament took over and wanted to write the laws on justification that it represented the people, king refused blahblah yadayada there's chapters and chapters about how it finally evolved into the modern day english legal system, now known as common law reasoning and institutions...,there's helluva a damned chunk regarding english legal histroy we shall not go too deep into that
What was the US Revolution all about if not to pull the various colonies in the New World away from the oppressive rule of the English King George III ?
No matter if you make no 'damned sense' to your nonsense about unwritten constitutions that I was trying to clear up - this is no skin off my nose.
7)your last passage makes no damned sense -
if you choose to make sense out of senseless things i can't do anything can i
-
Originally posted by Atobe:
do you even know what a crown colony is?
No matter if you make no 'damned sense' to your nonsense about [b]unwritten constitutions that I was trying to clear up - this is no skin off my nose.
[/b] -
You were given a considered courtesy to have your "expertise with nonsense" being understood - even clowns deserve some attention for their efforts. .Originally posted by vito_corleone:if you choose to make sense out of senseless things i can't do anything can i
What is a cynic? A man who knows the price of everything and the value of nothing.
Oscar Wilde (1854 - 1900), Lady Windermere's Fan, 1892, Act III
Don't reserve your best behavior for special occasions. You can't have two sets of manners, two social codes - one for those you admire and want to impress, another for those whom you consider unimportant. You must be the same to all people.
Lillian Eichler Watson
Associate with well-mannered persons and your manners will improve. Run around with decent folk and your own decent instincts will be strengthened.
Stanley Walker -
Originally posted by vito_corleone:
For someone who believe that the UK has "no written constitution" - do you even know the term - "crown colony" ? .
do you even know what a crown colony is?
There are two kinds of light--the glow that illuminates, and the glare that obscures.
James Thurber (1894 - 1961)
In the beginning there was nothing.
God said, 'Let there be light!' And there was light.
There was still nothing, but you could see it a whole lot better.
Ellen DeGeneres, (attributed)