Voting for Opposition a bad move? Wat of Check and Balances?
-
If you cannot understand the distinction between party and government, that's something you have to correct by yourself. The ball is in your court.Originally posted by oxford mushroom:And you are falling into the same assumption anti-government ranters hold in this forum. Just because someone supports the government's policy does not make him a lackey. I choose to exercise my right to the political system I consider best for Singapore.
To oppose every single government policy merely because it originates from the ruling party reflects the complete lack of reason that might expect in sheep.
I pointed out that a situation as such will naturally exist. Therefore, a pro-PAP Singaporean may not necessarily be pro-Government and pro-Singapore, and vice-versa. -
I assume you're a self-effacing, daft sycophantic fascist mouthpiece. And I'm exercising my right to the freedom of expression...Originally posted by oxford mushroom:And you are falling into the same assumption anti-government ranters hold in this forum. Just because someone supports the government's policy does not make him a lackey. I choose to exercise my right to the political system I consider best for Singapore.
To oppose every single government policy merely because it originates from the ruling party reflects the complete lack of reason that might expect in sheep.
-
In theory, no - they're still independent.Originally posted by Jontst78:You are probably right, maybe the 3 bodies shoul not be answerable to each other. Then again, most importantly, the 3 bodies have to be independent of each other. While here in Singapore, the constitution has been amended to a point where teh Executive has total control over the other 2 bodies(Judicary/Legislative)
But knowing the fact key appointment holders in the Legislature and Judiciary are cronies of the criminals ruling this regime, you see how the practice is politicised...
-
Our constitution started out as all of it being independent. But when the Barisan Socialist party boycotted the GE in the 50s or 60s, PAP has almost 100% seats, which was the start of PAP bending the constitution whichever way it suited them.Originally posted by walesa:In theory, no - they're still independent.
But knowing the fact key appointment holders in the Legislature and Judiciary are cronies of the criminals ruling this regime, you see how the practice is politicised...
I can't remember which amendment, if anyone know, feel free to post here.
The executive now has to power to appoint CJs and Judges on short tenures, which also give him the power not to renew the tenure. Previously, before the amendment, judges appoint could not be remove from office till they were 65, or for disciplinary reason. Also the judges salaries are determined by the executive. These fact already makes the Judicary dependent on the executive.
Not the mention that the police force is accountable only to one minister(who answers to the executive) instead of the Legislature as a whole. -
The way I see it, maybe the Barisan Socialists were not really rebels. They did serve a useful role.
It's a conspiracy theory. -
What I meant was that the structure is still independent and fair on paper. In practice, however, it's another matter entirely.Originally posted by Jontst78:Our constitution started out as all of it being independent. But when the Barisan Socialist party boycotted the GE in the 50s or 60s, PAP has almost 100% seats, which was the start of PAP bending the constitution whichever way it suited them.
I can't remember which amendment, if anyone know, feel free to post here.
The executive now has to power to appoint CJs and Judges on short tenures, which also give him the power not to renew the tenure. Previously, before the amendment, judges appoint could not be remove from office till they were 65, or for disciplinary reason. Also the judges salaries are determined by the executive. These fact already makes the Judicary dependent on the executive.
Not the mention that the police force is accountable only to one minister(who answers to the executive) instead of the Legislature as a whole.
Just to cite an example. I'm sure you're aware the fascists actually had to go through the parliamentary process (Legislature) to raise their obscene pay even though that proved a formality, don't you? -
Further more, without vote.
Was just stating for the benefit of others....
Article 94 Constitution of Supreme Court
(2) The office of a Judge of the Supreme Court shall not be abolished during his continuance in office.
(3) A person qualified for appointment as a Judge of the Supreme Court or a person who has ceased to hold the office of a Judge of the Supreme Court may be appointed as the Chief Justice in accordance with Article 95, or may sit as a Judge of the High Court or as a Judge of Appeal, if designated for the purpose (as occasion requires) in accordance with Article 95, and such person shall hold office for such period or periods as the President, if the President, acting in his discretion, concurs with the advice of the Prime Minister, shall direct.
(4) In order to facilitate the disposal of business in the Supreme Court, the President, if he, acting in his discretion, concurs with the advice of the Prime Minister, may appoint a person qualified for appointment as a Judge of the Supreme Court to be a Judicial Commissioner of the Supreme Court in accordance with Article 95 for such period or periods as the President thinks fit; and a Judicial Commissioner so appointed may, in respect of such class or classes of cases as the Chief Justice may specify, exercise the powers and perform the functions of a Judge of the High Court. Anything done by a Judicial Commissioner when acting in accordance with the terms of his appointment shall have the same validity and effect as if done by a Judge of that Court and, in respect thereof, he shall have the same powers and enjoy the same immunities as if he had been a Judge of that Court.
(5) For the purposes of Clause (4), the President may appoint a person qualified for appointment as a Judge of the Supreme Court to be a Judicial Commissioner to hear and determine a specified case only.
Article 4 can easily be used to circumvent article 2, and put judges' appointments at the mercy of the PM. Anyone knows for sure, how many of our judges are judicial commisioners at the moment? I heard the CJ is or was a judicial commosioner, can anyone confirm this? -
but it's not anonymousOriginally posted by eagle:Dunno
Not sure
Dun care
P.S. Your vote is secret -
I don't mean to be an arse, but I just realised, even on paper the executive and judicary are not independent.... for the benfit of those that don't understand....Originally posted by walesa:What I meant was that the structure is still independent and fair on paper. In practice, however, it's another matter entirely.
Just to cite an example. I'm sure you're aware the fascists actually had to go through the parliamentary process (Legislature) to raise their obscene pay even though that proved a formality, don't you? Article 95 Appointment of Judges of Supreme Court
Its in the constitution, the PM has great influence over the appointments of Judges... So back again to my thread starter post.... wrest control of the constitution from the PAP.
(1) The Chief Justice, the Judges of Appeal, and the Judges of the High Court shall be appointed by the President if he, acting in his discretion, concurs with the advice of the Prime Minister.
(2) Before tendering his advice as to the appointment under clause (1) of a Judge, other than the Chief Justice, the Prime Minister shall consult the Chief Justice. -
The PM's powers are similar to that in the Westminster system, except that in our case, because we have a unicameral Parliament, his powers' effects are generally much more pervasive and hegemonic.Originally posted by Jontst78:Its in the constitution, the PM has great influence over the appointments of Judges... So back again to my thread starter post.... wrest control of the constitution from the PAP.
In fact, the PM himself is almost without check and balance, save from the President, and yet that Presidential veto is limited through a need to gain Cabinet approval for any Presidential veto.
The office of the Prime Minister is essentially nearly absolute in power, in the context of parliamentary authority. -
Refer to LaserLordz's post. The line between Executive and Legislature isn't clearly demarcated in most parliamentary democracies - you could make the same case for the UK's considering the PM is actually acting on powers vested upon the Monarch.Originally posted by Jontst78:I don't mean to be an arse, but I just realised, even on paper the executive and judicary are not independent.... for the benfit of those that don't understand....
In the Singapore context, the President - in theory - belongs to the Legislative. -
Doesn't it make our whole system squewed?Originally posted by walesa:Refer to LaserLordz's post. The line between Executive and Legislature isn't clearly demarcated in most parliamentary democracies - you could make the same case for the UK's considering the PM is actually acting on powers vested upon the Monarch.
In the Singapore context, the President - in theory - belongs to the Legislative.
Btw, I found this as well....
JUDGESÂ’ REMUNERATION ACT
Remuneration of Judges.
2. —(1) There shall be paid to the Chief Justice, every Judge of Appeal and every other Judge of the Supreme Court such annual pensionable salaries as the Minister may, from time to time by order published in the Gazette, determine.
So our minister's salaries are determined by the Minister of Law? (which I think it refers to) So much for independent Judicary... sigh... -
Originally posted by Jontst78:
I posted something about Singapore's Judiciary in another thread earlier. This will give you a clearer idea as to what manipulations have been made tangibly to the Judiciary and what are theoretically logical, but practically nonsensical.
Doesn't it make our whole system squewed?
Btw, I found this as well....
JUDGESÂ’ REMUNERATION ACT
Remuneration of Judges.
2. —(1) There shall be paid to the Chief Justice, every Judge of Appeal and every other Judge of the Supreme Court such annual pensionable salaries as [b]the Minister may, from time to time by order published in the Gazette, determine.
So our minister's salaries are determined by the Minister of Law? (which I think it refers to) So much for independent Judicary... sigh...[/b] -
Even if you believe that making the three bodies independent of each other can improve checks and balance in Singapore, do you think the executive will for go such special privilege of absolute power? Do 84 mps in the paliament also feel that this is the correct way to run our country and change this rule of constitution?
-
Singapore have being paying high wages to so called talented ministers and MPs, do they not aware of the loopholes of the constitution? Or they pretend it does not exist?
-
Which goes back to the 1st post in the thread, when no single party has 66% seats in parliment, there is no total control over the constitution. Special Priviledges have to go thru by amending the contitution, or introuducing an Act. So the first step is to wrest control of the constitution from PAP.Originally posted by (human):Even if you believe that making the three bodies independent of each other can improve checks and balance in Singapore, do you think the executive will for go such special privilege of absolute power? Do 84 mps in the paliament also feel that this is the correct way to run our country and change this rule of constitution? -
That is one of the biggest irony as to how many people do not see the importance of opposition in parliament (and how susceptible they are to the propaganda churned out by fascist mouthpieces) - even if they were incompetent; at the very least, you'd expect them to serve as a check on any abuse of power.Originally posted by Jontst78:Which goes back to the 1st post in the thread, when no single party has 66% seats in parliment, there is no total control over the constitution.
Now you know what you're in for when someone tells you he/she doesn't vote for the opposition because they're not more competent than the fascists (without realising who regulates the playing field)...
-
Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. -John Emerich Edward Dalberg Acton