Prof Jayakumar reprimanded Sylvia Lim for conspiracy theory
-
Nobody dares to answer this question right?Originally posted by AndrewPKYap:Please answer this question that Silvia asked: "Why must the PM personally appoint two "gang members" of his choice if not to influence the judiciary?"
He thinks the PSC is incompetent? The thinks that the PSC appointees will not be impartial?
and I wonder if it is tied to the ongoing FEER suits... (BTW whats happening in that case?) -
Hi Mancha,
As robert teh had mentioned, you are proposing two sets of law for the parliament.
When a PAP MP threatens opposition, its alright because its protected in the parliament.
When an opposition speaks up, it is abusing privileges.
So who decides who is abusing privileges? PAP again?
I can repeat whatever you said and say jaya is abusing his privileges by threatening Silvia and Silvia is protected by the law to speak up in the parliament. -
Instead of voting with a conscience, they vote where the money lies.Originally posted by Sagara:x2
We are essentially paying them to follow and agree with the 'boss'.
With a potential million dollar paycheck, who would dare to risk incurring the wrath of the 'emperor' ?
If you have monkeys, then peanuts is one of the incentives to keep them happy. -
If "truth and justice" does not serve the "rich and powerful". There is no reason for them to pursue it.Originally posted by AndrewPKYap:I meant, take the sides of they rich and powerful when the rich and powerful are against truth and justice. -
This cuts both ways.Originally posted by robertteh:...
Everyone will start respecting all procedures of parliaments when leaders like tghe ministers are willing to be accountable and answer to criticisms without treating the MPs as adversarial. There is a larger perspective and larger duty expected of our ministers as leaders which they probably up to now still do not understand.
...
If ministers refuse to discharge the higher duty and respect such rights of MPs when speaking in parliament then the whole system will break down with parliament becoming a facade for ruling party to do whatever they like as the ministers could easily find a fault with MPs instead of conscientiously carrying out their higher duty to citizens and country as ministers.
...
It is for the ruling party as well as the opposition to respect parliamentary procedures, so that the whole system do not break down.
Will we have nothing to say when our Parliament degenerate to those like in Nepal, where ministers smash the parliament seats in disgust, or like in Taiwan where fist fights are not uncommon?
Mr Chiam See Tong, took on tenaciously the then PM LKY, on the so called subsidised HDB homes, he wasn't intimidated.
Neither was JBJ, intimidated when he brought out this issue of executive interferance in the judiciary.
Further more, a Commission of Inquiry is not a weapon of intimidiation, it is a tool to ascertain the facts.
It is how Chee Soon Juan was exposed telling lies in Parliament, and indirectly, to the people.
The opposition should not expect to be treated like they are handicapped. They should not have this attitude: "We are weak, be kind to us."
Prof Jayakumar wants to put his agenda through, he wants to succeed. Of course.
Slyvia Lim should also want to succeed. -
Originally posted by Calvin86:Hi Mancha,
As robert teh had mentioned, you are proposing two sets of law for the parliament.
When a PAP MP threatens opposition, its alright because its protected in the parliament.
When an opposition speaks up, it is abusing privileges.
So who decides who is abusing privileges? PAP again?
I can repeat whatever you said and say jaya is abusing his privileges by threatening Silvia and Silvia is protected by the law to speak up in the parliament.
I am not proposing two sets of laws. What Robert says is true of unrestrained freedom of speech in Parliament, I say is it should not be abused. By any one.Originally posted by robertteh:I am surprised as a lawyer, Prof Jayakumar does not seem to know or attach sufficient weight to the fact that under the constitution, courts and parliament are two places where elected MPs are officially granted the right to speak up on any issues, right;y or wrongly believed, factual or false, substantiated or unsubstantiated with immunity from any prosecution of any nature without fear or favor or threat of sanction.
...
If everyone in Parliament were cavalier, there would be mayhem. And they would be immune form it too.
Nobody wants that. -
Originally posted by mancha:Parliamentary privileges should not be abused.
As a lawyer herself, she should know that.
Anyway she is safe from punishment, but don't forget Prof Jayakumar also can say what ever he likes, and that includes ticking off Slyvia.
The integrity of the judiciary should be protected.
Slyvia Lim as a lawyer, should know that.
As a lawyer and also as a person having the privilege of speaking in Parliament, she should know that what ever she wants to allege must be backed by evidence. Parliamentary privileges aside, she cannot just say that the executive will interfear with the judiciary, and leave it at that. Where is the support for the assertion?
By the way, if she has proof, she knows that she can bring it out in Parliament with immunity. If she is a coward, and fears reprisals, thats her own doing.
What crap? -
[quote]Originally posted by mancha:
[b]
Slyvia Lim is not a layperson, she knows the protocol.
Slyvia Lim was admitted to Parliament on a technicality.
Fear? What can you do about someone elses fear.
PM chooses for the people. Remember he was voted in. How he is voted in? that's
wei, lee hsienloon was voted in not by us the people of Singapore. So ??? So far how has he been performing, we know!!!! Definitely don't trust someone like him to choose for the people. -
But who decides that the system is being abused? The more powerful and influential party? The powers that controlled the press? Slyvia Lim has raised valid concerns and should be replied with facts and not threats.Originally posted by mancha:I am not proposing two sets of laws. What Robert says is true of unrestrained freedom of speech in Parliament, I say is it should not be abused. By any one.
If everyone in Parliament were cavalier, there would be mayhem. And they would be immune form it too.
Nobody wants that. -
PARLIAMENT (PRIVILEGES, IMMUNITIESAND POWERS) ACT
(CHAPTER 217)
Freedom of speech and debate and proceedings
5. There shall be freedom of speech and debate and proceedings in Parliament, and such freedom of speech and debate and proceedings shall not be liable to be impeached or questioned in any court, commission of inquiry, tribunal or any other place whatsoever out of Parliament -
Threats easiest, when you have money or powerOriginally posted by Calvin86:But who decides that the system is being abused? The more powerful and influential party? The powers that controlled the press? Slyvia Lim has raised valid concerns and should be replied with facts and not threats.
-
What threat?
This is more accurate:
And that because she is suggesting that the judiciary could be interfered with.Originally posted by Fingolfin_Noldor:So instead of clarifying, they scold her.
Well done. -
How did she abuse the privilege?Originally posted by mancha:Parliamentary privileges should not be abused.
As a lawyer herself, she should know that.
Anyway she is safe from punishment, but don't forget Prof Jayakumar also can say what ever he likes, and that includes ticking off Slyvia.
The integrity of the judiciary should be protected.
Slyvia Lim as a lawyer, should know that.
As a lawyer and also as a person having the privilege of speaking in Parliament, she should know that what ever she wants to allege must be backed by evidence. Parliamentary privileges aside, she cannot just say that the executive will interfear with the judiciary, and leave it at that. Where is the support for the assertion?
By the way, if she has proof, she knows that she can bring it out in Parliament with immunity. If she is a coward, and fears reprisals, thats her own doing.
Jaya was trying to deny her the privilege to free speech and debate in parliament. -
Hello Jontst78,
quote:
Thanks for reproducing the section on MP's privilege to speak with immunity in parliament.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PARLIAMENT (PRIVILEGES, IMMUNITIESAND POWERS) ACT
(CHAPTER 217)
Freedom of speech and debate and proceedings
5. There shall be freedom of speech and debate and proceedings in Parliament, and such freedom of speech and debate and proceedings shall not be liable to be impeached or questioned in any court, commission of inquiry, tribunal or any other place whatsoever out of Parliament
Certainly under this section, MP's privilege to speak is well established and should not be administratively or legally superseded by Prof Jayakumar by merely alleging for whatever reason that MPs are behaving like Jeyeratnam and not speaking with facts.
It will have to take more than this judgment by prof Jayakumar to supersede such a privilege.
Furthermore, what constitutes abuse of privilege is not for ministers to judge.
An independent court without influence by ministers who had an interest to protect under the query should be the proper competent court to provide such a judgment and not Jayakumar.
MPs are definitely immune from any administrative actions like the blockage by a commission of inquiry to stop MP's query or whatever other actions ministers may be contemplating behind Prof Jayakumar's threat to block Sylvia from speaking with a commission of inquiry. -
i think it can be agreed upon if Sylvia Lim has something credible to say, i think the parl and the general public should be all ears.
If she is twisting facts and saying untruths, then she should be duly investigated for her statements.
In the meantime, let her talk! Is the government trying to dictate to us what we can or cannot hear?
I can't help but continue to feel like a little child (although I was a child not too long ago) -
Huh? In what way were the actions of Sylvia Lim cavalier or mayhem causing? You mean by raising an issue regarding the independence of the judicial system would constitute mayhem?Originally posted by Calvin86:I am not proposing two sets of laws. What Robert says is true of unrestrained freedom of speech in Parliament, I say is it should not be abused. By any one.
If everyone in Parliament were cavalier, there would be mayhem. And they would be immune form it too.
Nobody wants that.
Freedom of speech should be encourage, the public can be the judge as to whether the speaker has raised a valid issue. If everybody keeps quiet like the PAP backbenchers or raise insignificant points only to vote along party lines, then what is the point of having a parliament sitting. You might as well appoint Kim Jong Il to be the head of state. -
The very fact that there was a commission of inquiry is unconstitutional, hence illegal?Originally posted by linchiling:Mr Jeyaretnam's remarks led to a commission of inquiry into those specific allegations, as well as a committee formed by Parliament to look into whether he had abused his parliamentary privileges.
Both groups found him to be "wrong and unjustified in making those allegations", Prof Jayakumar reminded Ms Lim. -
You mean there is no valid concern in her line of logic? If I am elected as a CEO of a company, I place my family members and friends in top executive positions and pay them stellar salaries. My family members and friends won't be beholden to me?Originally posted by mancha:What threat?
This is more accurate:
And that because she is suggesting that the judiciary could be interfered with.
Are people so naive these days? -
They are the judge, jury and executioner. Whatever they say is legal!!!Originally posted by Jontst78:The very fact that there was a commission of inquiry is unconstitutional, hence illegal? -
Minister in charge of the issue in question should be the one to explain, with facts and logics that there were no interferences with judiciary in the way PM is empowered to appoint members of the judiciary commission.Originally posted by Jontst78:The very fact that there was a commission of inquiry is unconstitutional, hence illegal?
If he cannot, Sylvia Lim's expression or feedback is valid. If this is the situation would the minister be entitled to convene a commission of inquiry to investigate her.
Should't the parliament propose a commission of inquiry to investigate the minister's failure to answer relevant questions and issues of public importance instead? -
If we go by the plain wording spelling out specifically the right of MP to speak on issues and problems with protection under the Privilege Act as stated in the above-stated section quoted by you it is quite clear that it is unconstitutional or contempt of parliament for minister to refuse answering to MP's query and instead try to circumvent that section by trying to impeach, or investigate Sylvia Lim which is equivalent to interfering with her right to speak up on issues like she did in parliament.Originally posted by Jontst78:The very fact that there was a commission of inquiry is unconstitutional, hence illegal? -
It is difficult to get the proof because u r not in their circle, eg any communication between the PM and the judiciary, only 2 of them know, outsiders wont know so how to get proof?Originally posted by mancha:Parliamentary privileges should not be abused.
As a lawyer herself, she should know that.
Anyway she is safe from punishment, but don't forget Prof Jayakumar also can say what ever he likes, and that includes ticking off Slyvia.
The integrity of the judiciary should be protected.
Slyvia Lim as a lawyer, should know that.
As a lawyer and also as a person having the privilege of speaking in Parliament, she should know that what ever she wants to allege must be backed by evidence. Parliamentary privileges aside, she cannot just say that the executive will interfear with the judiciary, and leave it at that. Where is the support for the assertion?
By the way, if she has proof, she knows that she can bring it out in Parliament with immunity. If she is a coward, and fears reprisals, thats her own doing. -
It cut only one way the way I see it and not both ways. The executive has now become the prosecutor, the jury and the judge. The way it is running the government legalistically using laws to get what it wants including shutting up dissents with wrangling of laws and regulations to pass back duties to the people and avoid accountability and serve its own convenience.Originally posted by mancha:This cuts both ways.
It is for the ruling party as well as the opposition to respect parliamentary procedures, so that the whole system do not break down.
Will we have nothing to say when our Parliament degenerate to those like in Nepal, where ministers smash the parliament seats in disgust, or like in Taiwan where fist fights are not uncommon?
Mr Chiam See Tong, took on tenaciously the then PM LKY, on the so called subsidised HDB homes, he wasn't intimidated.
Neither was JBJ, intimidated when he brought out this issue of executive interferance in the judiciary.
Further more, a Commission of Inquiry is not a weapon of intimidiation, it is a tool to ascertain the facts.
It is how Chee Soon Juan was exposed telling lies in Parliament, and indirectly, to the people.
The opposition should not expect to be treated like they are handicapped. They should not have this attitude: "We are weak, be kind to us."
Prof Jayakumar wants to put his agenda through, he wants to succeed. Of course.
Slyvia Lim should also want to succeed.
It is cutting one way with no one able to stop them from even writing their own pay cheques by absurd and wrongful nkf-like wrangling with figures and reserves. Its ministers salary benchmarking decision is final - their own decision - with no one able to change it as voting is not permitted purely its own decision.
Under such autocracy, or self-centred governance as Ngiam Tong Dow has succinctly put it whatever that are decided will be auto-piloted until major problems were caused e.g. elitism and rich-poor divide and perpetual rising costs due to relentless taxing and recovering of all costs and even profiteering on assets and lands which were paid by citizens but were charged over again resulting in government hoarding monies into surpluses which hampered the growth of the economy for years.
Now there is a upturn due to world recovery and people's cpf and wage cuts they were doubly quick to claim their success.
Under this type of circumstances and wrongful practices, Sylvia Lim had spoken to offer some constructive solutions asking leaders to loosen up on control of the judiciary and the whole government machinery which had been gerrymandered to serve only the ruling party at the expense of the people. -
It is utterly absurb to have govt writing their own pay cheques, it is a concern. Is there really no authority or whatsoever to countercheck on them and monitor them to make sure they don't go overboard? It is a concern, as far as salary is concerned they can give themselves whatever high salary and nobody dare stop them or check on them. Just a question not an accusation, is this some kind of corruption? My overseas friend who was a former FT was talking about the super high salary of the MIWs, he mentioned that this is a new system of corruption.Originally posted by robertteh:It cut only one way the way I see it and not both ways. The executive has now become the prosecutor, the jury and the judge. The way it is running the government legalistically using laws to get what it wants including shutting up dissents with wrangling of laws and regulations to pass back duties to the people and avoid accountability and serve its own convenience.
It is cutting one way with no one able to stop them from even writing their own pay cheques by absurd and wrongful nkf-like wrangling with figures and reserves. Its ministers salary benchmarking decision is final - their own decision - with no one able to change it as voting is not permitted purely its own decision.
Under such autocracy, or self-centred governance as Ngiam Tong Dow has succinctly put it whatever that are decided will be auto-piloted until major problems were caused e.g. elitism and rich-poor divide and perpetual rising costs due to relentless taxing and recovering of all costs and even profiteering on assets and lands which were paid by citizens but were charged over again resulting in government hoarding monies into surpluses which hampered the growth of the economy for years.
Now there is a upturn due to world recovery and people's cpf and wage cuts they were doubly quick to claim their success.
Under this type of circumstances and wrongful practices, Sylvia Lim had spoken to offer some constructive solutions asking leaders to loosen up on control of the judiciary and the whole government machinery which had been gerrymandered to serve only the ruling party at the expense of the people.
Autocracy = oppression of the people.
WE need people like Sylvia to speak on issues that need to be addressed but there they are giving her no respect and chance to get reply from them. Isn't there something called conscience ruling their hearts and mind as govt who are entrusted to take care of the nation?
Almost all things are controlled to serve their interest, what is the difference between Singapore and the communist countries? -
Singapore is like the old Manor Farm, when farmer Jones got chased out Napoleon the pig took over and rewrote the whole constitution.Originally posted by qlqq9:It is utterly absurb to have govt writing their own pay cheques, it is a concern. Is there really no authority or whatsoever to countercheck on them and monitor them to make sure they don't go overboard? It is a concern, as far as salary is concerned they can give themselves whatever high salary and nobody dare stop them or check on them. Just a question not an accusation, is this some kind of corruption? My overseas friend who was a former FT was talking about the super high salary of the MIWs, he mentioned that this is a new system of corruption.
Autocracy = oppression of the people.
WE need people like Sylvia to speak on issues that need to be addressed but there they are giving her no respect and chance to get reply from them. Isn't there something called conscience ruling their hearts and mind as govt who are entrusted to take care of the nation?
Almost all things are controlled to serve their interest, what is the difference between Singapore and the communist countries?
All animals are equal, except some animals who are more equal than others.