Proposed Revisions of the Constitution
-
The current constitution (Singapore) is too general and vague.
For example, there is no specific definition of citizens' rights, no redress or remedy for any infringement of such right like the habeas corpus under the constitution.
There is no governmental structure spelling out the respective roles and functions of different components within the government.
Hence, the constitution in the present form is unable to assure the citizens of system integrity, accountable and transparent processes to prevent overlapping of roles among the executive, judiciary and legislative components of government resulting in compromises on system integrity.
Above all there is no assurances of true and uninhibited political participation by the citizens in political or election process nor upholding of the one-man-one-vote election process, essential to the vibrancy and progress in any democratically elected system of government.
For the time being, people may be content with bread and butter issues rather than the weighty issues of rights and integrity of the governing system.
We are a young country which is still in the process of experimenting with our political system through trial and error. There is a need to grow and mature our very own political and government system in a timely manner. If we fail to do so, we might one day end up with tyranny and abuse of power which is one of the greatest factors for instability in any systems.
Therefore with this perspective in mind, I am asking this critical question at this juncture of our development – should we study the existing constitutions and its shortcomings and make relevant amendments and improvements as well as to prevent any possibility of abuse by any future parties in power.
The vagueness and generality in the existing constitution have already resulted in laws and regulations being passed like the summary power of arrest of citizens and detention without trials and granting of estate upgrading to incumbent party's loyalists and doctoring of citizens' one-man-one-vote entitlements under the GRC election process.
Our constitution is looking to be more like an old tattered piece of clothe worn just to avoid nakedness but unable to provide protection from the element and warmth to the wearer.
Once an objective, fair and equitable constitution has been established, it will strengthen the government in winning wholeheared support of the people. We can proceed with evolving a constitution from overall perspective as stated in the foregoing to avoid any narrow approaches which were narrowly based on pragmatism or monies making by the government.
Above all the constitution must be regarded as compact between the government and the people and kept sacred and not easily be undermined with impediments to the larger objectives and goals of promoting total growth and vibrancy which could come about through mass participation by citizens.
People want to elect the government to serve the people's needs and aspirations and deliver the greatest benefits of the greatest numbers and not to give itself more and more legalistic controls to itself to stay permanently in power. If we want greater progress, we must be prepared to win it by working together as a people and go beyond the needs and aspirations of first stage of nation building to embrace larger goals and objectives in perspective such as the following:-
(1) To safeguard One Man One Vote principle so that only the best individuals are elected into political office complete with accountable and transparent check on power of executives by the people.
(2) To ensure continual multi-racial representation but not at the expense of tilting the level playing field in favor of the party in power. (Alternative solution is possible e.g. 20% of seats of parliaments can be set aside to allow minority racial seats to be allocated to minority winning the highest percentage of votes among themselves as counted in the one-man-one-vote election return)
(3) To safeguard the Basic rights of all citizens irrespective of race, culture, religion, freedoms of speech, political beliefs, right to stand for election or right to make criticisms of policies or practices of government in power.
(4) To refer all issues and disputes among politicians to independent courts empowered to adjudicate all matters impinging on constitutional matters.
(5) Establish Rule of law, justice, fairness and equity of all citizens and between citizens and government without fear or favor to the government in power.
(6) To fundamentally encourage through the constitution further growth of social, cultural and economic vibrancy, entrepreneurship and creativity of citizens.
In my view there are enough powers given to the government within our system to carry its duties fully and effectively. In the new era, success will be dependent more on how to mobilize and motivate all citizens towards nation building. To do so, it is essential if not critical to grant, preserve and uphold relevant rights and entitlements of citizens so that the citizens will be motivated to come forward to serve their nation in whatever capacity they are equipped to do so without any constraints.
Such a constitution will be proactive and open up greater avenues for citizens to take a larger part in nation building through all cultural and economic interactions among all citizens. Such larger objectives and goals could be incorporated so as to engender cooperations and interactions beneficial to nurturing and developing creativity and entrepreneurship.
Singapore's democracy is still young and it needs to be further nurtured and developed into one which will motivate and encourage all to participate in nation building.
It will be too premature to put the blame for any demonstrations and rallies seen in certain countries on democracy and conclude fallaciously that democracy is the cause for chaos and is unsuitable for us or Asians.
The fact is democracy has triumphed over the dark forces, social injustices and brought about significant progress of the human race over the past four hundred years
Democracy has faults and defects but its totality of accountable and transparency governance processes, including the one-man-one-vote and capability at balancing of self-centred autocracy with objectivity, justice and equity has produced the final good and greatest benefits to the greatest number. Without democracy or fair and equitable political and election processes, the world could have been worse off. There could have been more tyranny and bad experiences due to dictatorship, autocracy or pseudo-democratic practices which benefit only those in power.
In the final analysis, a nation is only as good as the quality of its people. If people want to make further progress in the new era of technology and globalization, the first precondition must be to put its own governing process in order one which will embrace all to come forward to contribute to total progress with accountability and transparency irrespective of belief, cult, race, religion or political views or inclinations. -
no offence.. i am actually interested in your article...
but it's too long.
i am a critique of singapore's constitution and how it's interpretation is always inconsistent. -
depends on who is interpreting it and to whose benefits.Originally posted by Ponders:no offence.. i am actually interested in your article...
but it's too long.
i am a critique of singapore's constitution and how it's interpretation is always inconsistent. -
I agree with you it is a bit long for casual readers but this is a big topic that concerns every one and if the proposal is likely to be one with impact it has to be sufficiently substantiated with facts and arguments to get any response from the people who are in power.Originally posted by Ponders:no offence.. i am actually interested in your article...
but it's too long.
i am a critique of singapore's constitution and how it's interpretation is always inconsistent. -
Hmm.. i read your article, but sorry, i am in preparation of an overseas trip...
i will be back in 4 days... .keep this thread alive!!!
-
Rob., I think our gov is too arrogant to even entertain the thought of revising the so called Constitution just because some member of public says so.
I would believe it more viable if Mr Bush himself critique our gov about it, since they like to suck up to him... -
It is true the government has been arrogant and been persistently ignoring good feedbacks from its own people because of pride and self-centredness.Originally posted by ShutterBug:Rob., I think our gov is too arrogant to even entertain the thought of revising the so called Constitution just because some member of public says so.
I would believe it more viable if Mr Bush himself critique our gov about it, since they like to suck up to him...
It will take them averagely 10-20 years to change its past policies e.g. meritocracy has been narrowly implemented to benefit only the elites giving them greater opportunities in education and jobs but the government has stuck to such a policy for years despite 3 deep recessions which showed the elites as being unable to solve many problems.
People continue to suffer from high costs of living and doing business due to wrongful double charging on lands for housing and essential government services.
It is wrong to use surpluses for estate upgrading for their loyalists and for electioneering. It is wrong to pay themselves million-dollar salaries and 6-months bonuses by making fallacious comparison with wages of CEOs and bosses in the private sector as this is working for their own personal benefits as seen in NKF.
But people are like drops of water. Every drop counts and one day, and no matter how hard is the concrete ceaseless dropping of water one day will puncture it through.
NKF even though for now the struggles ahead seem insurmountable but with reasoning by all people and making of their views heard in every net, eventually the truths will have to be heard.
It is hoped by then ministers and MPs will not be only working for their own personal career advancement but for the people. -
how many times u propose revisions le ar?
-
To all Forumers,
We the people who have been asking government to open up and be accountable will be disappointed with what has happened to our Straits Times and Today which are now totally controlled and will only publish propaganda and news which suit the government's fancy.
Imagine the intellect of our scholars and ministers sinking to such dismally low and shameful level of subservience.
So nothing will change despite all the leadership's promises to change and open up and be a more inclusive and caring society.
Singapore will continue it seems to be run on autocracy with the newspapers continuing to pretend they are publishing news and people's views and feedbacks objectively but look at what has happened in the way the newspapers are receiving and publishing our letters. Only letters of municipal pettiness will be published and those which question mainstream policies and government mistakes will be ignored.
The following letters to the Straits Times lamenting the present state of subservience of our media with copies to PM Lee Hsien Loong, MM Lee Kuan Yew and Minister Lui Tuck Yew are reproduced here for your general information please:-
From: Mr. Robert Teh Kok Hua
Dear Editors, Straits Times, Today Newspaper
On 8.1.2007, I have sent a letter to the forum page editor of Straits Times entitled “Proposal to revise the Constitution”. Needless to say, as the caption suggests, such a letter of course might be sensitive to or criticize existing policies or past hypothesis and assumptions of the government of the day.
I am aware of the need to keep my letter short to within 400 words due to limitation of space. However, I feel that given the nature of the topic and concerning a subject as weighty as the constitution and system of government, the Straits Times should grant some leeway to allow amendments or its gist or substance to be published if it wants to heed PM LeeÂ’s call to the nation on his inauguration to build an inclusive cosmopolitan society.
I subsequently shortened it and re-sent the draft to the editor again a few days later with a view of securing its publication.
Sad to say despite my efforts in shortening the draft, the forum editor has not published my letter probably for fear of contravening PMÂ’s LeeÂ’s directive to the newspapers sometime back not to engage in crusading journalism.
If the rationale for rejection of my letter was made known to me, I do not mind receiving a rejection. By rejecting such a letter without offering good counter-solutions to those offered in my letter, the Straits Times will be committing an grave injustice to the readers and the public for not reporting worthy objective views or truths. Its editorial board, executives and governing council will be perceived eventually as compromising people who are lacking in moral courage, service orientation and only working to protect their own rice-bowl or perpetrate more NKF wrong doings.
As a major newspaper with some reputation, I am sure the Straits Times could have the ability to discern right from wrong and its many government scholars on its editorial board will be answerable to the people and continuously and tirelessly review and re-appraise its own relevance particularly in the aftermath of NKF saga and not allow their positions to supporting any narrower views or objectives. For commercial reason, at least, one would have thought that Straits Times will at least try to serve its shareholders if not its readers and public by enhancing its quality professional status as regional authoritative newspapers worthy of reputation.
I therefore challenge the Straits TimesÂ’ team to be more responsive to the publicÂ’s feedbacks concerning major issues and problems facing the nation and be more aware of their ultimate duties and responsibility to the readers and public and not go on blindly perpetrating in supporting any wrong doings or NKFs. I am sure it will recognize its nobler and worthwhile role to report news and truths as they are and not give in to any attempt to impose self-censorship without clear and objective justifications. -
Is the government honest, truthful and incorruptible ?
When its PM said in his inauguration speech in 2004 that he wanted to build an inclusive and cosmopolitan society, does he seriously mean what he said?
Facts:
(1) I wrote in 2006 to YoungPAP secretary and PAP and Ministers/PM after Dr. Vivien and PM had announced intention to invite people with non-conformist views to join the party or party-debates on major government policies.
I asked in my email to YoungPAP secretary and Minister V and PM Lee why my application to take part in its internal debates on policies were repeatedly turned down.
(2) I recently wrote to Straits Times and Today a letter for publication in its Forum page on "Proposal to Revise the Constitution". Despite my efforts to shorten it to within 400 words and make the letter objective and balanced in views, this letter was rejected.
During the period 8.1.2007 to 17.1.2007 the letters which were published in the forum pages of both newspapers were found to be those of petty municipal issues which do not in any way offer any in-depth solutions to the persistent problems of high costs, NKF practices or the 20 Major Government policy errors as posted repeatedly to the government's Feedback Unit and Young PAP forum for some time.
How to believe our leaders' words and promises now? Are our leaders' words carrying weight any more or are they uttered for presentation or public relation?
Are our leaders prepared to recognise real problems facing the society resulting in unhappiness of the masses as demonstrated in NKF, Shin Corp debacle, white elephant t-shirt protests and many other incidents.
Can't our scholars show their ability to make changes to past policies and practices which are outdated and no longer working or which are causing all the problems to the society at large.
Will they be able to see that over-controls on our newspapers will lead to pent-up NKF problems which resulted in protection of their own favored boards and directors and elites and their own ricebowls.
How to hold up your chin high if you cannot understand and solve such problems as posted and have to control the newspapers in publishing of news and truths.
How about having a serious debate with people since PM Lee has on many occasions suggested robust debates as a way to resolve society problems ? -
NKF, Temasek's rash decision in acquiring Shin Corp shares without due process, GCT's subtle threatening to withold public funds from Potong Pasir and Hougang citizens for estate upgrading in electioneering, wrongful over-charging on lands by HDB and its refusal to back down in its repeated false claims of subsidy were all serious problems showing the grave dangers of running a government without accountability and transparency.
It is not just the leaders themselves people should worry about. It is the fact that subordinates might use the weakness of autocracy who are in psychology needs for praises and compliance to entrench themselves in power or gain benefits for themselves as seen happening in NKF durai case.
Just imagine when some subordinate civil servants were to be able to talk directly and privately with ministers or PM Lee or MM Lee and what would have happened to the whole departments or ministries and the accountability of corporate governance structure.
After many years of such self-centred leadership or autocracy where leaders are able to do as they like and even pass any laws and regulations to increase their own salaries or control the freedoms of expressions of views etc or political participation by citizens, have our leaders solved the many problems people have brought up to them.
Instead we see increasing cases of abuses surfacing case after case without any attempt to solve them.
Every feedback about wrongful charging by the HDB in sale of flats were explained away with hypocrisy without being bothered to give people who raised the problems better answers or solutions.
There are bound to be more and increasing NKF abuses where the officers close to politicians are able to do as they like to stay in favor or power or worse systematically plan their actions for their own personal gains and benefits.
Is the Straits Times one such organization where people supported by politicians could refuse to publish news or letters concerning major government issues and problems to look after their own ricebowls or private interest.
Should the government stick to its past autocracy and cause more problems or should it change its self-centredness, to prevent greater abuses by men like the durais. -
We could draft out the most perfect, all-encompassing Constitution in the world. But it would still be useless if the power of ONE can override the constitution in the court of law.
-
Be more optimistic,the 'power of one' is bound by the law too.
-
We are being controlled by legalistic wrangling of laws which were passed for control purposes to suit the narrow self-centred agendas of the power that be.Originally posted by spinsugar:We could draft out the most perfect, all-encompassing Constitution in the world. But it would still be useless if the power of ONE can override the constitution in the court of law.
The psychology is that as long as actions can be justified by some forms of laws or regulations being passed or interpreted to support certain actions, leaders could go ahead and do whatever they like including laws to increase their own salaries increases and bonuses without any consideration of larger issues, people's problems, views or suggestions.
Given another age, another PM or another party, all the government actions, laws and regulations passed would be found that some one has passed those laws for self-centred agendas or to protect his or her own entrenched self-interests and not for the benefits of the people at large.
This has already happened to NKFs when under GCT, Durai actions were found or presumed to be right and ministers reported to parliament as if NKF did no wrong and public was wrong.
But truths eventually prevail as discovery of golden tap triggered off huge public outcry leading to mass withdrawal of donation by the public, and wrongs were finally exposed. -
Yes, indeed... they are bound alright...Originally posted by PRP:Be more optimistic,the 'power of one' is bound by the law too.
by their OWN laws that is.... -
That is nothing new.
--> PM Lee -> SM Lee -> MM Lee --
| |
--<--------<-------------<-----------<--
So unless this cycle is %&^%$, nothing will change -
Originally posted by justcooler:That is nothing new.
--> PM Lee -> SM Lee -> MM Lee --
| |
--<--------<-------------<-----------<--
So unless this cycle is %&^%$, nothing will change -
This cycle must be broken to preserve our people's right.Originally posted by justcooler:That is nothing new.
--> PM Lee -> SM Lee -> MM Lee --
| |
--<--------<-------------<-----------<--
So unless this cycle is %&^%$, nothing will change