Calling on MPS to put up motion to amend the CONSTITUION.
-
Date: 31.12.2007
MOTION TO PUT UP AN EMPOWERING AND PROGRESSIVE CONSTITUTION FOR OUR ADVANCEMENT TO THE FIRST WORLD.
The current constitution (Singapore) being adapted from the Westminster Model of Parliamentary Democracy is too general and vague.
There exist many grey areas e.g. the framework of government and their interrelated working relationship or hierachy not sufficiently defined with clarity. Hence, such a constitution allows the governing party a lot of leeway to govern the country to suit its own purposes and narrow interests.
It is therefore essential to re-examine the current constitution with a view to improving the current system of government and overcoming all shortcomings and if necessary overhauling it to provide the necessary changes to bring about certainty and prevent any manipulations or tweaking of the constitution by any parties in power in future to serve their own hidden agendas or interests.
First let us review whether the constitution should clearly spell out the rights and duties of citizens' rights or the integrity of respective components of system or the safeguarding of the one-man-one-vote election process.
In the present form of the constitution, the ruling party has been able to amend the election process and tweak it into a GRC to control the election so that individual best candidates of quality or leadership abilities are no longer free to stand for election and only the incumbent party with financial resources over the years has the capacity to dominate and put up candidates for election.
All the components of government - the executive, judiciary and military and legislature - are now under the current vaguely defined constitution are now in total control of the over-powered Executive.
The Executive has acquired too much power to the extent that the ministers can go to their own controlled parliament to put up proposals to write their own pay checks or undeserved life pension (over and above market pays they receive) using some excuses like "need to attract and retain talents and avoid corruption" without any objective or rational basis or election manifesto or consent of the people.
The government can use their own officers or judges to interpret the laws and override the principal constitutional provisions governing conflicts of duty and roles and persist in passing any laws as they please taking advantage of the grey areas in the constitutions to circumvent loopholes to do all its biddings.
Because of grey areas in the constitution, government governs by legalistic power (to the exclusion of moral and social values) becoming intolerant of criticisms of government policies or actions with most of the government resorting to either ignoring problems with denials or fixing of political oppositions or alternative solutions.
Even if there is some forms of tolerances the ruling power will use them as hypocrisy to postpone right long-term solutions to problems to buy time for more wrong doings.
The answer to the above-stated review of problems and use of grey areas in the constitution as is seen happening once too often is obvious: The Westminster Model of democracy which gives too much power to the executive branch of government no longer works for the largest benefits of the people, produces a government which is capable of governing by the people.
In such a situation, any parties in power for the time being will be able to practise hypocrisy, tweak and manipulate laws just to carry out their own selfish or narrow-minded agendas so as to stay in power and do as it likes.
The problems so created by such a constitution as we now have are tremendous and are not serving our own benefits as a people or nation building.
People must now understand such problems being created and must take actions to ask for change through peaceful and constitutional means to change for the better.
The constitution is the basic document of nation building and as such it must clearly establish the fundamental roles, duties and responsibilities of election process, rights and privileges of being citizens so as to enable them to play their ultimate roles and duties to secure the integrity of the election process and governing of the country with accountability based on proper check and balance seen in all democratic systems of government.
With such a democratic framework as stated in the foregoing set up in the constitution, it should then enable the whole constitution to be the final source of law to which all will revert to safeguard social, cultural and economic vibrancy particularly in the following areas:-
(1) One Man One Vote election process to ensure that all who are eligible are able to enter his name for nomination to be a candidate for election.
(2) To ensure multi-racial representation, a certain number of seats of parliaments can be reserved for contest among minority candidates.
(3) The rights and duties of citizens are spelled out as inviolable with suitable protection irrespective of race, culture, religion or tenets including freedoms of speech, political beliefs, right to stand for election or right to make criticisms of policies or practices of government in power without fear of being sued for remarks or criticisms of government in the course of election.
(4) The roles and duties and responsibilities of components of governments i.e. executives, legislature, judiciary and civil service are spelled out clearly to avoid conflict or usurpation of power by anyone to lay down a foundation for establishment of rule of law.
(5) Establish Rule of law, justice, fairness and equity in conduct of laws without fear or favor to the government in power.
(6) To Establish a low-cost independent panel open to observers from UN agencies to oversee election process and political participation by citizens.
(7) To Establish powers in appropriate agencies under the supervision of an independent panel for indictment or Investigation and adjudication of conflicts of interests among members of the government.
With such a constitution, the government will then respect the roles, duties and rights and privileges of being citizens and go about governing the country proactively including complying with the framework of roles and duties of government and encouraging and motivating citizens to take an active part in scrutiny of government performance and feedbacks of whatever policies or actions taken by the government to ensure that they would exercise their sacred votes during election without fear or favor or compromise.
Such a constitution will then help to bring about greater possibilities to all citizens to have a country well run by the government which will truly serve as the government by the people and for the people in the widest perspective of nation building.
All could then respect the constitution and work collectively towards bringing about true democracy and build a cohesive social and cultural and economic entity able to contribute to creativity, entrepreneurship or participations in election, giving feedbacks without fear or favor.
Singapore's democracy is still young so it must not falter and should have a larger perspective and vision to evolve and mature in its democracy. -
wait but long and long.
-
This can only change, when the present government gets replaced...
... otherwise, the same nonesense prevails... -
robertteh,
can u please add in a section on abolishing the current mandatory human organs harvesting from recent deceased? who are the organs for? nobody knows. -
Dear Forummers,
The above-mentioned proposal was emailed to all MPs on 31.12.2007 and 1.1.2008. I have received some views from certain MPs who do not feel the need for amendments considering that my proposal is too idealistic. I have replied to the MP accordingly giving my view why such a proposal will help to upgrade our democratic processes and benefit all citizens.
I will keep all informed of development. -
I agree with you that the opt-out organ donation method in allowing the state to pronounce a patient braindead even if he is still breathing and may be saved is against fundamental human right.Originally posted by fishbuff:robertteh,
can u please add in a section on abolishing the current mandatory human organs harvesting from recent deceased? who are the organs for? nobody knows.
If the state can have the power to pronounce such a comatose patients' (who do not even die but only in coma) as dead and goes on to end his life (pull off the plug) we the citizens indirectly lose our right to save our own life or our love ones' lives.
Without safeguarding citizens' right such as this the constitution will be anti-people and useless for us. We must ask for the constitution to restore our citizens' rights to live as long as we still breath.
So if the proposal is receiving attention, I will certainly bring up such rights of citizens and have it properly dealt with.
We the citizens must speak with one voice if we do not want to have our rights taken away one by one by all kinds of presumptions or assumptions. -
Is there an amending formula for our constitution or a majority vote from parliament by suffice?
-
Constitutional amendments not relating to sovereignty issues only require a 2/3rds majority in Parliament. They do not need a national referendum.Originally posted by Quincey:Is there an amending formula for our constitution or a majority vote from parliament by suffice?
Now you see why checks and balances are important, else we will have little in the way to ensure that amendments are truly needed or just an exercise in politics. -
Thank you Robert Teh
1) for standing up to your beliefs.
2) for fighting such pursue that would seem so daunting and overwhelming to many.
3) for speaking up for democracy. Democracy, with all its flaws and short-comings, is still the only workable system of the modern time.
For singapore to last, not just for 100 years after independence, or 100 years after the death of LKY, but for many centuries to come.
Whether as a sovereign nation or as one of the functionaries within the asian union, we need dual party parliamentary representatives.
So that the voice of the common man can be heard within the highest office of this nation, and not the voice of only one man - be he being benign or not.
Time for Singaporeans to throw away their migrant mindsets. Singaporeans should know that their past voting behaviour is nothing short of greed, selfishness and fear- and the rule government knows it and knows how to take advantage of it.
Politic is the food you eat, the air you breath. Most importantly, it is about the future. Don't just only think about the 4D that this going to open during the weekends.
Think deeper about the future. PAP can't be forever there to shape it for you. Even if PAP is forever here - no assurance that it will not fall into the wrong hands. Things that are going right now may not always go right. The world is changing at a faster and faster rate than before.
Your child's, niece's, nephew's, grandchild's future is shape by your choices you made. Don't point at the the politician. You have chosen him.
Put it this way, politician comes and goes; political party comes and goes; and everything can comes and goes. Even the institutions of this country have to be reshaped and redefined again and again.
At the end of the day, we are left with a system of social agreement and the most important of the system of social agreement is Democracy. We must learn to protect and treasure it.
As you make you election choice, don't let it be driven by immediate gain of greed, selfishness and fear. -
I agree that we reap what we sow. It is not just how good the constitution we have that will assure us of better life for ourselves.Originally posted by 00011000:Thank you Robert Teh
1) for standing up to your beliefs.
2) for fighting such pursue that would seem so daunting and overwhelming to many.
3) for speaking up for democracy. Democracy, with all its flaws and short-comings, is still the only workable system of the modern time.
For singapore to last, not just for 100 years after independence, or 100 years after the death of LKY, but for many centuries to come.
Whether as a sovereign nation or as one of the functionaries within the asian union, we need dual party parliamentary representatives.
So that the voice of the common man can be heard within the highest office of this nation, and not the voice of only one man - be he being benign or not.
Time for Singaporeans to throw away their migrant mindsets. Singaporeans should know that their past voting behaviour is nothing short of greed, selfishness and fear- and the rule government knows it and knows how to take advantage of it.
Politic is the food you eat, the air you breath. Most importantly, it is about the future. Don't just only think about the 4D that this going to open during the weekends.
Think deeper about the future. PAP can't be forever there to shape it for you. Even if PAP is forever here - no assurance that it will not fall into the wrong hands. Things that are going right now may not always go right. The world is changing at a faster and faster rate than before.
Your child's, niece's, nephew's, grandchild's future is shape by your choices you made. Don't point at the the politician. You have chosen him.
Put it this way, politician comes and go; political party comes and go; and everything can comes and go. Even the institutions of this country has to be reshape and redefine again and again.
At the end of the day, we are left with a system of social agreement and the most important system of social agreement is democracy. We must learn to protect and treasure it.
As you make you election choice don't let it be driven by immediate gain of greed, selfishness and fear.
If we as people or citizens do not play our part in speaking up on problems and only care for our own bread and butter we will not have better lives or enjoy peace or harmony or prosperity.
We have some short period of success in the 1960s - 1970s. We could have done much better if we as a people play our part in constantly reminding our MPs and leaders to help us to have better system and better government and better constitution.
Sadly there are too many of us who still easily believe in propagandas like pragmatism or policies which taxes and make more and more profits for the government without concern for the wellbeing of the majority of the people.
If we as people think and act as one we will find that among our joblessness those who are likely enough to work and earn S$2,000.00 pm cannot even pay for mortgages and necessities.
Who will help us or save us or improve our lives? Let others face the powerful government or be taken to tasks but not us. This will be wishful thinking.
We have wrong policies made by the government many times because the constitution is too weak to help us check their helping themselves.
Let us not easily believe in all the propaganda like "if we do not pay millions and undeserved life pension" there will be no more talents or we cannot "retain talents".
All such policies are made with all sorts of excuses because our constitution has been to weak and unclear to protect us and save us from wrongful excuses and selfish policies.
If we keep thinking only of ourself and not together for the common good of all we will soon be in danger of our organs taken away from us even if we are still breathing or our own CPF saving being forfeited because of our own complacency and inaction in the past.
It is time for all to speak up on problems and support all efforts made to ask for change like change of the current constitution which is the root cause of many problems.
I will keep you informed of development in my approaches to all the MPs and let you know who will help us. It will be greatly appreciated if you could help me to copy this proposal and present it in whatever way you can to your MPs and ask for help.
May be with your connections to the MPs we can all benefit and get better support for the proposal. I am awaiting your help in this as I alone may not get the results for all. -
robertteh your plead will not go unheard, but this form of action will be limited to emails and posting on forum such as this one.
I will support emotionally ..... -
I am keeping my fingers crossed. I have received some ice-breaker encouraging remarks from certain MPs who have indicated a need to amend certain areas of the constitution.Originally posted by justcooler:robertteh your plead will not go unheard, but this form of action will be limited to emails and posting on forum such as this one.
I will support emotionally .....
Of course there is a need to keep answering to stereo-type excuses not to change like democracy posing a danger of disorders or chaos. I hope all of us need to work together. For a start we need to disseminate the proposal, to more MPs or ministers whom they may be acquainted with. Any one knowledgeable in constitutional laws may message me or post here to present them when asked by certain MPs. -
History has confirmed once again from what has happened recently like ministers trying to increase their own pays or tweak our CPF retirements into another scam it has become clear that only democracy and widespread accountable processes will be good for the running or governing of a country.
Other than democracy we will always be in danger of leaders trying to govern countries for their own self-glory or self-interest or power rather than for the greatest good of the greatest number.
In my short exchanges with MPs on the proposal to amend the constitution, I found that many of them are fearful of disorders and chaos as had happened to our neighboring ASEAN countries.
They tend to blame such chaos and disorders in these ASEAN countries turning to democracy which they have barely understood on democracy or practices or democracy.
Are such observations of our MPs true or objective or are they prejudices the results of paranoid self-glorifications or self-protectionism or self-preservations.
I have pointed out that in such ASEAN countries like Philippines or Indonesia if their free election or democracy do not succeed thus far the primary cause of such non-success may not lie in democracy at all.
I explained that in matured democracies in Europe,UK or USA democracy has brought about major civilisations and revolutionary and transformations to societies including vast advances in science and technologies so who are we the upstart to come to the verdict that democracy has been bad or the cause of failures in Philippines or Indonesia.
One thing is for sure democracy is the only political system which starting point is for leaders to be popularly elected in free election and to govern based on sure-footed accountable governing processes supported by a well defined governing framework and system of laws and administration of justice, to assure ordinary citizens of equity and basic rights and freedom. There is no other system which has brought about revolutionary progress and advancements to many people over many centuries as democracy has done.
So I informed the MPs concerned that the primary cause of chaos and disorders often blamed on democracy as in problems Philippines or Indonesia should not be blamed on democracy.
Without democracy today many countries in this world will still be in the dark ages where leaders and powerful people oppressed their weaker ordinary people causing major suffering and revolutions and violence.
No dictatorship or oppressing system could produce such widespread transformation as democracy as done over the centuries which have benefited billions of people.
If there are exceptions these are rare. The little superficial material wellbeing gained from any so-called autocracy or benevolent dictatorship will last for a while in initial stages but such superficial benefits will also be soon overtaken by power corruption which will eventually cancel out all gains and checkmate the whole process due to insidious inbreeding of self-interests and sheer corruption by power.
Only democratic processes finally will offer long-term enduring good corporate governance to prevent such corruption by power.
To MPs still believe that democracy is the cause of chaos and instability and we should not change the constitution for fear of such paranoid fear I would say that their views were too prejudiced.
Some MPs have tried to pain a picture that it is the institutions or organizations which will lead to progress and prosperity.
I will simple ask these MPs the question: will the so-called institutions or organizations be sustainable without democratizing them to be more open and accountable?
Will institutions under autocracy last beyond one generations if they are not underpinned by democracy and stable and rational democracy good governance processes.
If Myanmar is to have a strong benevolent leader today will he bring about lasting peace and prosperity and will his creations of institutions and organization last beyond one generation.
If democracy is to work in Myanmar it will eventually bring about mutual bondage of the people which will lead to acceptable governing practices and only such democratic processes under democracy will stand the test of time but sufficient time is needed for democracy to take root.
In answering to our MPs' views that democracy or democratic processes or practices are not for us and we should not attempt to amend or revamp the current constitution which I have considered as too weak to check excesses due to its lack of definitions or clarity of the roles, duties and power of component branches of government, I will ask them to reconsider my proposal once again.
But if the MPs are to do so, they must first remove all their own prejudices against democracy due to past too much propagandas or brainwashing as seen happening in our current anti-democracy thinking within the government. -
(A reply to suggestion by someone in another forum to do away with NMP in constitutional amendments)
The NMP scheme is an eyewash or hogwash just to appease the electorate unhappy with monopoly of the election system under GRCs through manipulations of the democratic election process.
It will become irrelevant and easily dropped from our election system once the constitutional amendments relating to protections of citizens' right of free election and of their choice of the best possible candidates in any wards without impediment by any subsisting laws, legislations, devices or procedures is dealt with.
More than NMP issue, many other issues presently affecting the citizens will similarly be resolved if the constitution is duly amended to plug up loopholes and prevent manipulations by any party in power to serve its own interests. -
(Comments on problems in Kenya election)
I understand and sympathise with the problem presently caused to Kenya.
This is the same problems being discussed with our MPs presently regarding manipulations of the constitution with devices or procedures like group representation constituency (GRC) device which in name sake is to balance racial representation by in truth is to allow the ruling party to monopolise election by putting preventing citizens from choosing their own best candidates in any wards thereby allowing the ruling party to walk-over elections without contest and stay in power for ever.
The ultimate solution is for people to demand their right of free election and freedoms to choose their best candidates without any kind of procedural impediments or devices or pretensions or excuses being clearly protected in the national constitution with strict enforcement and vigilance by all citizens.
People are the ultimate guarantee of freedoms and rights and greatest good of the greatest number. They exercise their rights in the national election with maturity and do not accept any hypocrisy or be brainwashed into submissiveness. Violence or rebellion are symptoms caused by lack of maturity or inability to plug hypocrisy or loopholes engineered by politicians in charge of system.
Do not address problems by violence or by chasing the symptoms. Go to the root of the matter. -
some few forummers here have saidOriginally posted by HyperFocal:This can only change, when the present government gets replaced...
... otherwise, the same nonesense prevails...
'majority' supports them.
where technically, in this scenario,
majority = those who got to vote.
and not all the eligible voters.
but of course, that is just to clarify for some people.
of course I say I also support them and there will still be the same level of majority if all eligible (that is include voters in walkover areas) got to really vote. u no the believing the me de meh?
-
As future or potential MPs or Ministers it seems that the best policy for all of them is to adopt the selfish attitude that there should not be carrying bad news to the emperor.
This is clearly found in the replies of MPs to my above-stated proposal to amend the constitution.
I see the same policy being adopted by Reach or the former Feedback Unit - no reply no response and not saying anything right or wrong to avoid affecting their own career.
The same thing is happening to my recent feedback about the flaws and defects in our constitution to MPs.
Most of the MPs do not reply to my emails. Some of the MPs at least replied and say they will look into my suggestions. One of them said she has referred my proposal to the ministry of law. When I replied asking her what would be her views as MP she replied again repeating that this matter come under the Ministry of Law and that is that.
The majority of MPs adopted a very arm-length attitude "saying thank you for your feedback and have a good day". So I can see that nearly all the MPs are too afraid to get involved with real problem feedbacks. One of them went into the topic and informed me I have been idealistic citing examples like Indonesia or Fillippines said to be caused by democracy. I responded with rationale and because of them the MP replied again agreeing that certain parts of the constitution need amendments. I asked "if he finds my suggestions objective or reasonable why not convey them to the higher up ministers". There were no replies after that. So the issues and problems brought up in my proposal are conveniently side-stepped and forgotten.
Everyone of the MPs seems to be afraid of being involved in some negative feedback which may affect his or her career.
Can we have good leadership or talent in government if our MPs adopt this kind of attitude or policy to avoid carrying bad or unpleasant news to the emperor to be free of getting into troubles with their own career themselves. -
We have been told always that only MPs and Ministers, of certain academic or job attainments (usually connected to establishments rather than true attainments) are people of quality or ability to serve as our MPs or Ministers.
So many such MPs and ministers were elected to represent us in many elections over the past 40 plus years.
Looking back, however let us review how many of such type of MPs or Ministers did help us solve problems like rising costs, transportation woes, unemployment among our highly educated young, or improvements of our wages versus inflations etc.
How did our MPs and Ministers feel about our rising costs, high inflations, unnecessary GST increases despite all the surpluses, of their conflicts of interest in putting up their own salary increases or indefinite postponement of their retirement.
I have written to almost all MPs concerning the many problems we are facing and have asked for tabling of a motion to amend the constitution in parliament so as to give us a better direction and future.
While one or two MPs have engaged me on the merit of my proposal the majority of MPs and Ministers did not seem to bother and did not even give me the courtesy of an acknowledgment or reply to do something about the problems stated in my proposal.
So it is quite clear that there are few MPs today who are concerned or caring about our problems as proven by the above-mentioned apathy to problems presented in my emails.
Therefore it is a fact that there is something seriously wrong with our Manpower Policy. Scholars and high flyers given opportunities time and again over so many elections did not serve us better.
We should not continue to believe the propaganda that only those who have high-flying academic attainments or job status are our potential leaders.
So far from our own past many elections we already have many MPs or ministers who are highly qualified by academic or career criteria but sad to say we only come across them as being more interested in their own career prospect rather than serving the people. This is clearly proven by their apathy towards the problems stated in my recent proposal to them to bring up the matter to parliament to do something.
Honesty, integrity, empathy, accountability, morality and service excellence, plus some reasonable education and proven ability in managing businesses or finance etc should be the new criteria for our leaders.
We may also need to open up our criteria and welcome foreign talents and give them permanent resident status and internship and let them prove their worth over 5-10 years and eventually be our leaders to solve problems.
We need people who are truly passionate to serve the people and who know how to build consensus to come forward to serve. Only such people could confront real issues and ask difficult questions about wrong policies or wrong doings.
Time is of the essence now as many citizens who are highly educated are also becoming unemployed and ordinary people are finding it difficult to survive in our pro-rich and pro-elite uncaring governing.
So we the people should send a strong message to ask for change so that we could elect the right people to serve us including honest and passionate people, foreign talents with ability or potential who are dedicated and willing to help us and groom them to become our Ministers and PM one day. -
Robert,
I was impressed that you approached the MP with your views. I was even more impressed that you got them to listen.
When I had read the constitution before, I actually started laughing. That's how bad I thought it was. On further consideration, I could see the part it played in our development and that it had value but as you said, in the wrong hands...
While I do not agree fully with the changes you propose, I agree there is a need for review and change. I fully agree it needs more checks and balances to come closer to (what in my mind is) the democratic model.
Bear in mind our current bureaucracy is built up around those principles and changes to the Constitution will also mean extensive and far reaching changes to the bureaucracy with consequences we have to anticipate. I seriously wonder how we'd be able to effect it even if we ever got everyone to agree on the necessary changes.
When I read that part about inviting foreign talent with the intent to becoming our future leaders....I'm sorry, I just laughed outright.
I am greatful that you shouldered the responsibility of drawing people's attention to it. -
Phil30K,
I am advocating change to our previous manpower policy heavily premised on academic or job attainment by first showing that such talents have not really done well in our case. They were given many opportunity over the past 40 plus years but so far they have not excelled except for some self-praise and self-glorifications by our leaders who promoted such leadership criteria.
We need to adopt new criteria to supplement the academic precept made years ago. Academic ability should be one of the major criteria but not the predominant or only criterion.
Career status alone is also not sufficient as many successful CEOs from the GLCs or private sector too have not proven their mark in serving us.
So far the previous MPs mostly chosen from such categories are found to be only interested in securing their own careers rather than solving problems.
Having said that I am also not saying that we should throw caution to the wind by inviting any ones like Tom Dick and Harry to be our leaders. I am not advocating we should invite any foreign talents to be our ministers or MPs right away. I mentioned internship through a minimal period of PR residential criterion first being tested for loyalty before eligibility to be our MP.
Education is an important criterion for leadership but not automatic passport. Elites meaning people with high academic attainment should not be the predominant criterion like being promoted now.
Let honesty, integrity, empathy, morality be adopted as the key criterion alongside academic and career criterion.
So we should look for our future leaders from people who have such qualities before assuming putting up to assume leadership position. -
I see I misunderstood your point on foreign talents.
I believe that in a democratic society, the vote is the sole criterion. Any variation is a compromise.