Prof Jayakumar reprimanded Sylvia Lim for conspiracy theory
-
Originally posted by Jontst78:
There are lots of miscomprehension in this thread.
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
For starters reread the above slowly, break it apart, and comprehend exactly what it is saying.
Secondly, the "if" in my posts are missed by some forumers. All ifs are big ifs, in that they always do not state facts and are usually hypothetical.
Thirdly, I say parliamentary privileges are not to be abused, given the freedom of speech. Yes, you can say anything you like, but don't take advantage of the privileges and say things you should not say.
The independence of the judiciary is one of them. You want to cast aspersions on the judiciary, have the facts, don't blurt out unsubstantiated accusations under parliamentary privileges. You will get scolded for that.
Other no nos, for example only, are insulting religious heads as immoral persons without proof.
Or accusing an office bearer of treason, without basis.
It is permissible in parliament, without punishment too, but is not to be done.
Slyvia Lim, although she has freedom of speech, should have chosen her words with more care. -
I read with interest concerning this recent hoohaa in Singapore's political scene.
While I can't judge what is right or wrong with certainty, I do feel there are some points that one can glean from both the exchange in Parliament as well as the transcript of Sylvia Lim's speech.
1. From the transcript, my read is that she is debating the need to "finetune" the system as Prof Jayakumar refers to this new amendment given the perceived risk that this move may undermine the integrity of the court. Of course, this point can be taken both ways. One way is that external parties e.g. investment companies, foreign governments can take this move as a signal of tighter control over the judiciary by the government and in that context might now bode well for the integrity of the judicial system (whose ranking Prof Jayakumar reminds us is high and should not be "besmirched"). The other way to look at it would be Prof Jayakumar's point in that it attacks the integrity of the PM in that his role in appointing these members is towards the advancement of his/her goal.
2. In this case, the argument in this thread about whether Sylvia Lim has stepped over the bounds of her right to speech under the protection of the Parliamentary proceedings depends on how you interpret her speech. My own read is towards the former -- that such a move might not be in the interest of the perceived integrity of our system and that in line with Prof Jayakumar's point, we should not do anything to "spoil" that. Ironically, her intentions are similar to Prof Jayakumar's intention but he act is to criticize her for bringing out the danger of such of move and call into doubt her intentions for proposing such a debate.
3. As for evidence for Sylvia's point, I think as one other forumer has already pointed out -- the analog would be the role of company leadership in appointing their own people to external bodies to audit and monitor their own governance. Regardless of the integrity of these leadership, most observers would not look kindly to such moves. Moveover, when we look at the US system, we note that the choice of appointee for the Supreme Court Judges by the President is always met with huge suspicion and in some cases outright hostility by members of the Senate who are NOT from the President's own party. The recent appointment of the Supreme Court judges by Bush are clear cut cases -- where Democrat Senators took a very hard stance and seriously grilled both candidates. IN fact, one of the first nominee was excused after the first round. The gravity and manner in which such proceedings take place are evidence that most (not naive) astute observers realize that political appointees are in one form or another, explicit or implicit beholden to the person who appointed them. To make a statement as recorded below:
Added Prof Jayakumar: "Once (the Prime Minister) has nominated two members and they're appointed, his role ends there. Neither he or the other nominating members can direct the nominees to act or decide in any particular manner.
does make one wonder (as in any layman) how big a pinch of salt does the government expect us and other observers to take! He is of course correct technically that the PM do NOT direct how nominees act or decide in any particular manner. Yet because of the PM's ability and role to appoint them, it is highly plausible for the position of the PM to to influence indirectly along various guidelines and not in specifics; just as the President of the US have the indirect ability to influence policies of the Supreme Court by having that power to put their appointees.
Prof Jayakumar's following statement that these appointees would act in concert with other members of the committee is also equally problematic as Sylvia Lim has pointed out i.e. AG is also part of the government etc.
The government therefore either should reconsider this move or in a more transparent manner acknowledge the plausibility of such situation (even a hypothetical one) and create the checks and balances to ensure that such hypothetical do not get abused. -
Strange why a general concern raised in parliament by Ms. Sylvia Lim has been interpreted by the ruling PAP MPs to be an aspersion that warrants strong defence and threats.
....the WP chairman said the change could "undermine public confidence in the neutrality of our courts".
The statements below this has no relationship whatsoever with the statements above. So please do not imply that both issues have the same intention and draw your conclusions from there.
If an internal auditor of a public listed company advises it's CEO, that the finance and accounts division should not be under the charge of the CEO, doing so will affect investors' confidence in the financial information of the company.
If you ask if I am offended by such statements, I would say a definite "NO", the internal auditor is just raising a valid concern which will improve the integrity of my company.
I would be most offended if I was perpetrating improprieties through some cracks and my internal auditor raised the very issue which I am trying to avoid.
Most likely response, would be to silence my internal auditor and ensure that the issue never comes up again by using threats. -
If Sylvia Lim has the freedom of speech in parliament as stated in simple words in the above-stated section who is to judge that her privilege so defined in this section is a limited or qualified one subject to her choosing her words with care or subject to minister interpretation of what constitutes abuse of that privilege whether within or out of parliament.Originally posted by mancha:There are lots of miscomprehension in this thread.
For starters reread the above slowly, break it apart, and comprehend exactly what it is saying.
Secondly, the "if" in my posts are missed by some forumers. All ifs are big ifs, in that they always do not state facts and are usually hypothetical.
Thirdly, I say parliamentary privileges are not to be abused, given the freedom of speech. Yes, you can say anything you like, but don't take advantage of the privileges and say things you should not say.
The independence of the judiciary is one of them. You want to cast aspersions on the judiciary, have the facts, don't blurt out unsubstantiated accusations under parliamentary privileges. You will get scolded for that.
Other no nos, for example only, are insulting religious heads as immoral persons without proof.
Or accusing an office bearer of treason, without basis.
It is permissible in parliament, without punishment too, but is not to be done.
Slyvia Lim, although she has freedom of speech, should have chosen her words with more care.
Which part of this section or any other section says that her freedom is a qualified one in that she has the duty to speak with great care to avoid abuse of her given privilege.
If that freedom is not so qualified who is to say that it is qualified or subject to her privilege not being abused.
Who is to determine in such an event it is a qualified privilege what constitutes abuse.
Before anyone can call into question what constitutes abuse should the MP first be entitled to her queries or issues being answered in parliament so that minister in charge will answer them with facts and logics to satisfy that minister's duty as minister.
Should minister fail to answer to such queries or questions so raised in parliament would the minister not be in contempt or in breach of his duty as minister?
If minister fails to answer her question but instead goes on to assert abuse of privilege would that minister himself be liable to abuse of MP's privilege in the first place.
The general principle in any law of I am not wrong is that a person should not be the judge in his own cause.
Which part of this privilege was subject to minister being the judge of what she has raised. Which part of this section gives the minister the higher right over the MP to threaten or block her query with a commission of inquiry which may in effect result in restriction of that given specific privilege. -
Originally posted by maurizio13:
interesting analogy. she is obviously seen as a threat to the MIW.
Strange why a general concern raised in parliament by Ms. Sylvia Lim has been interpreted by the ruling PAP MPs to be an aspersion that warrants strong defence and threats.
[b]....the WP chairman said the change could "undermine public confidence in the neutrality of our courts".
The statements below this has no relationship whatsoever with the statements above. So please do not imply that both issues have the same intention and draw your conclusions from there.
This would be equivalent to an internal auditor of a public listed company advising it's CEO, that the finance and accounts division should not be under the charge of the CEO, doing so will affect investors' confidence in the financial information of the company.
If you ask if I am offended by such statements, I would say a definite "NO", the internal auditor is just raising a valid concern which will improve the integrity of my company.
I would be most offended if I was perpetrating improprieties through some cracks and my internal auditor raised the very issue which I am trying to avoid.
Most likely response, would be to silence my internal auditor and ensure that the issue never comes up again by using threats.
[/b] -
A valid concern raised ended up as a lambasting session for Jaya.
I wonder why he was so angered by the issue, it wasn't even accusatory. -
one possibility - may be he doesn't regard Sylvia as the opposition party has the right to question (of no equal standing). there could be something fishy somewhere!!!Originally posted by maurizio13:A valid concern raised ended up as a lambasting session for Jaya.
I wonder why he was so angered by the issue, it wasn't even accusatory. -
They did not scold her.
Just warn her to be very carefulOriginally posted by Fingolfin_Noldor:So instead of clarifying, they scold her.
Well done. -
What's the diff?Originally posted by CPTMiller:They did not scold her.
Just warn her to be very careful They essentially gave her a veiled threat reminding her of Jeyaratnam's fate. -
When people do not give valid and good arguments and instead resort to threats, how much can you trust their integrity?Originally posted by Fingolfin_Noldor:What's the diff? They essentially gave her a veiled threat reminding her of Jeyaratnam's fate.
Yet the whole time they are saying "Trusts us/PM not to abuse the right to appoint his own people".
He/they choose to resort to threats, how can we trust them? -
and tis verbal threat coming from a law minister.. how ironic..Originally posted by AndrewPKYap:When people do not give valid and good arguments and instead resort to threats, how much can you trust their integrity?
Yet the whole time they are saying "Trusts us/PM not to abuse the right to appoint his own people".
He/they choose to resort to threats, how can we trust them?
-
WE don't trust them, of course!!!! and this is just one of the many things that we don't trust them!! just one of the many, ha ha!Originally posted by AndrewPKYap:When people do not give valid and good arguments and instead resort to threats, how much can you trust their integrity?
Yet the whole time they are saying "Trusts us/PM not to abuse the right to appoint his own people".
He/they choose to resort to threats, how can we trust them?
-
Slyvia has not abused the freedom of speech in parliament. Firstly, she didn't make any accusations of corruption, all she is saying is that such a move is taking a step back away from Judicial Independence.Originally posted by mancha:There are lots of miscomprehension in this thread.
For starters reread the above slowly, break it apart, and comprehend exactly what it is saying.
Secondly, the "if" in my posts are missed by some forumers. All ifs are big ifs, in that they always do not state facts and are usually hypothetical.
Thirdly, I say parliamentary privileges are not to be abused, given the freedom of speech. Yes, you can say anything you like, but don't take advantage of the privileges and say things you should not say.
The independence of the judiciary is one of them. You want to cast aspersions on the judiciary, have the facts, don't blurt out unsubstantiated accusations under parliamentary privileges. You will get scolded for that.
Other no nos, for example only, are insulting religious heads as immoral persons without proof.
Or accusing an office bearer of treason, without basis.
It is permissible in parliament, without punishment too, but is not to be done.
Slyvia Lim, although she has freedom of speech, should have chosen her words with more care. -
Everytime these politicians argue over something reminds me of the subtitles in pirated DVDs .Either you find them atrociously funny or you would be reading something that was meant for a different movieOriginally posted by Jontst78:Slyvia has not abused the freedom of speech in parliament. Firstly, she didn't make any accusations of corruption, all she is saying is that such a move is taking a step back away from Judicial Independence. -
oh yea.. ever watch a 'Transmorphers' movie?Originally posted by Short Ninja:Everytime these politicians argue over something reminds me of the subtitles in pirated DVDs .Either you find them atrociously funny or you would be reading something that was meant for a different movie -
No but the all the documentary DVDs from Mustpha have this problemOriginally posted by 4getmenot:oh yea.. ever watch a 'Transmorphers' movie? -
actually democracy can only work on the basis of mistrust of too much power in any one branch of the govt, or even in any one man. Those entrusted with the affair of state must be constantly watched through a system of checks and balances.Originally posted by qlqq9:WE don't trust them, of course!!!! and this is just one of the many things that we don't trust them!! just one of the many, ha ha! -
Basically, in a democracy, you should not trust anyone.
The government is the last place the citizens should place absolute, blind trust in. -
If commissions of inquiry are so effective and were so regularly used by ministers to establish truths as against allegations or speculations over policies or actions like the nkf then such commissions of inquiry should first be set up to look into the financial irregularities reported by the Auditor General in many ministries.
This is particularly urgent where ministers themselves and not the junior civil servants as heads of ministries might be the ones who gave instructions or issue policies in the first place which cause the particular wrongs, negligence or errors discovered or speculated.
Such commissions of inquiry will then make the ministers and top civil servants truly work for the people to serve the greatest benefits of the greatest number as mentioned once by MM Lee.
Is Prof Jayakumar prepared to do set up such an inquiry for those items in the AG report relating to his own ministry. -
If the section granting MP privilege to speak with immunity in parliament is not clear then all should read and re-read the section again...
Quote:
Note: there is also no condition under this section to the effect that MPs' privilege is a qualified one and could be blocked or obstructed by ministers convening a commission of inquiry to counter-investigate MP within parliament. "Out of parliament" does not imply Jayakumar has the right to convene COI within parliament to prevent MP's from speaking up to extract information and establish facts to allay concern from ministers on any issues.
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 -
too bad...the Speaker is dumbOriginally posted by robertteh:If the section granting MP privilege to speak with immunity in parliament is not clear then all should read and re-read the section again...
Note: there is also no condition under this section to the effect that MPs' privilege is a qualified one and could be blocked or obstructed by ministers convening a commission of inquiry to counter-investigate MP within parliament. "Out of parliament" does not imply Jayakumar has the right to convene COI within parliament to prevent MP's from speaking up to extract information and establish facts to allay concern from ministers on any issues. -
That section has not been interpreted fully to the spirit of the law.
-
Spirit of the Law = PAPOriginally posted by LazerLordz:That section has not been interpreted fully to the spirit of the law. -
Professor Jayakumar has just ticked off Nominated MP Sylvia Lim in Parliament last week for resurrecting the past conspiracy theory of ex-MP Jeyeratnam in raising issue over the proposal to authorize PM to appoint key members of the judicial commissioners.
He interpreted SylviaÂ’s query as allegation against the executive with for independence of the judiciary.
He has threatened to convene a commission of inquiry to investigate SylviaÂ’s presumed allegation.
He forgot that Sylvia was protected by the Parliamentary Privilege of the MP which specifically enacted that MPs in speaking up in parliament was free from any prosecution, investigation by any commission of inquiry or tribunal.
Citizens are concerned with such frequent threats by ministers against MPs to convene commissions of inquiry just because such issues brought up by MPs are too embarrassing or sensitive to the executive.
It is suggested that if government ministers should be more objective and accountable to the people. They should not be too sensitive to criticism rightly or wrongly held and instead perform their duties to the worldÂ’s best standards since they are paid the worldÂ’s best salaries plus lifelong pensions plus exceptional bonuses unheard of any part of the world which the highest paid CEOs in the private sector are not usually getting. So ministers need to change their confrontational style and instead try to answer to issues raised by Sylvia instead of using political power to block her from such questions to avoid accountability to the concern raised.
If Prof Jayakumar cannot take such criticism in the proper perspective preferring to interpret what Sylvia raised as aspersions against him or his government then he should step down from office and let other potential ministers who could be more patient or objective handle such issue.
Ministers should concentrate on running their respective portfolio without any legalistic wrangling with any laws or regulations or the civil libel to fix the MPs over difficult questions asked in parliament. They have the higher duty to answer to any queries or issues raised by MPs or citizens and they should be more broadminded instead of seeking legalistically to obstruct MPsÂ’ performance of their duties.
If Prof Jayakumar insists on convening a commission of inquiry he should first convene such commissions to investigate whether ministers and senior civil servants are negligent in causing the many losses or irregularities of public funds as reported here by the Auditor General. -
Quote:
What's wrong with a country without "Gomez" but full of yes-men.
Originally Posted by UluPandan View Post
Your immaturity and foolishness will only create more "Gomez"..........
It will be a like an Ostrich burying its head in the sand refusing to see what lies above in the horizon.
Is our country not in this sorry state now where all the wrongs are getting worse being grossed over and accepted like a conspiracy without "Gomez" to ask some questions but all the yes-men singing praises despite all the NKF, Shin Corp, financial losses and irregularities in so many ministries without commissions of inquiry and yet ministers are threatening of MPs with commission of inquiry instead for speaking in parliament on such wrong doings and truths.