That being said, I hope that you would take care of your health and that God will continue to grant you the good health to pursue the issues. But i pray that you would consider the issues that you raise very carefully, because in my humble opinion, not all of them are valid and in fact some of them are very wrong ways of looking at things.
However, you really do have my family’s and my respect for all you have been trying to do these past few years and you will be in my prayers. God bless.

However he needs to be consistent and focused and not be drawn into acrimony with the ruling party over diverse personal issues.

I am sure he will get a lot more support from other active citizens if he avoids such pitfalls.

He could start with proposals for example to amend the constitution, set up independent judiciary, police force, civil servants etc. These various proposals would be enough for a start and not be distracted by other issues of personal nature.

Personal issues will take care of themselves when the fundamental issues are addressed.

Please read proposals to amend the constitution, introduce process management for collective leadership, revamp the top-down leadership system etc as posted at [url]www.sgforums.com[/url]

JBJ was brief on this topic. So, I can be sure if what JK’s comment was based on fair understanding on what JBJ has in mind.

The following may be what JBJ has in mind:

http://www.london.gov.uk/gla/policing.jsp

How is the MPA structured?
The MPA Board is made up of 23 members: twelve members from the Assembly (including the Deputy Mayor), four magistrates and seven independents. One of the independents is a direct appointment by the Home Secretary. The Chair of the MPA is chosen by the members themselves – all of the 23 members are eligible for this position. The Mayor may appoint twelve members of the London Assembly to the MPA Board.

Who will appoint the Metropolitan Police Commissioner?
The appointment of the Commissioner will continue to be a Royal appointment made following a recommendation by the Home Secretary. The Home Secretary must have regard to any recommendations by the MPA and any representations from the Mayor before making his own recommendation.

I believe JBJ was reasoning in the direction of having something like this Metropolitan Police Authority to manage the daily operations of the police force. In the case of MPA Board that is made up of 23 members from different authorities to manage the police operations.

The idea is to have the Home Ministry to delegate the management of police daily operations to a more neutral and independent entity. It can reduce the chance of certain individual controlling the police force to act against public interests.

the courts neither have the democratic mandate to make and carry out policy, nor the expertise in doing so.

It is never a court’s job to make or carry out policy. The court’s job is to decide if the legislative branch’s action of making policy or the executive branch’s action of carrying out policy or executive order violate the constitution. The court can only rule on such issues when someone file a case against the legislative branch or the executive branch. It can never act on its own desire actively review the actions of the legislative branch or executive branch.

The Supreme Court judges in USA are nominated by the president and confirmed by the congress to receive indirect democratic mandate. The USA Supreme Court judges do not rule on constitutional issues alone. The decision is based on the majority vote of a panel of judges to address the different judges can come to perfectly legitimate and different conclusions about where the line should be drawn concern.

In Singapore context, that entity is the Constitutional Court.

http://www.thinkcentre.org/article.cfm?ArticleID=2587

My understanding is that Mr Jeyaretnam called for a judicial commission which will have the power to appoint judges is not limited to constitutional issues but also include lower court judges like those hearing his and Dr Chee’s cases.

The courts: Mr Jeyaretnam called for a judicial commission which will have the power to appoint judges, and taking this power away from the prime minister. “In a country with a constitution, the courts are the most important, even more important than parliament. The courts are the guardians of the constitution.”

- Any decent student of administrative law will recognise that this is controversial. Of course the courts should recognise that they have to watch the government if the government does something against individuals which affects their rights. BUT on the other hand, in many circumstances the courts neither have the democratic mandate to make and carry out policy, nor the expertise in doing so. EVEN IF we add in clauses into the constitution which require judges to scrutinise all laws passed so that their effect on rights ( e.g. like article 6 of the constitution) is no more than necessary to take care of the public interest, different judges can come to perfectly legitimate and different conclusions about where the line should be drawn.

Take the ISA for instance. Would this piece of legislation be unconstitutional? No.

Judge X might take the view that the protection of habeas corpus is so fundamental that no public interest can justify detention without trial.

Judge Y might take the view, however, that while detention without trial is a serious infringement on rights, nevertheless since the Home Affairs minister is given the mandate to protect the public from terrorists, he can do so as long as he does it in good faith; that the courts are not constitutionally competent to decide on matters of national security; and that furthermore, the ISA was passed through parliament in the proper manner and form and therefore is good legislation.

Judge Z however, might take the view that while the arguments made by Judge Y are all correct, nevertheless the court is not going to defer to the judgment of the Home Affair Minister- the latter must convince the court, in closed session if necessary, that on the balance of probability there are good reasons to detain the terrorist suspect without trial.

NONE of the above can be said to be “wrong” points of view. I hope the discussion above has given an inkling of the complexity of issues involved in human rights cases.

The police and law enforcement agencies: “The police should be moved out of ministerial control….We should have the police turned into a corporation, like in Britain, answerable to parliament.”

- THIS IS COMPLETE RUBBISH. EVEN IN BRITAIN THE POLICE ARE UNDER THE OVERALL IN CHARGE OF THE HOME SECRETARY. THE POLICE CHIEF IS NOT ANSWERABLE TO PARLIAMENT, IT IS HIS BOSS, THE HOME SECRETARY (ALSO AN ELECTED MP) WHO IS.

( I just had to scream this out. Just because JBJ says this doesn’t make him right).

Thanks for the info… :)

I think it will be amistake to write off JBJ. He’s been at it for decades and I am quite sure that he will have some impact on the next elections – if he stands.

Having said that, whether the impact will be enough to cause any real threat to the PAP is left to be seen. Perhaps the more significant result of his “return” will be on the opposition camp itself.

Depending on who joins his new party (if indeed he forms one), the different parties of the opposition will have to re-assess their game plans. This is because JBJ is a recognised name and he can practically contest anywhere – including Tanjong Pagar GRC – and may get a good result.

But the next elections are still some ways away. Much can happen. Lets see the constitution of his new party first – the members, potential candidates, funding, ground troops, and the stance that the new party will take.

Still, JBJ should not be written off just yet.

Just my personal opinion.

Regards,
Andrew

http://jbjeya.org/blog/index.php

May/22/2007
Permalink 06:54:40 pm, by uncleyap Email , 139 words, 4 views English (CA)
Categories: (1) Press Statements
Podcast of Mr. JBJ Press Conference 20.May.2007

http://jbjeya.org/JBJ_press_conf.20.May.2007.amr

Size of the above file is approx. 8.5MB and playback length is over 1 hr. It is the voice recording of Mr. JBJ at press conference on 20.May.2007. Please download and save this file, which may take 5 mins on broadband connections.

His a brand of politics that is tried and proven to be a failure – the PAP have proven time and again they are willing and able to sue him silly, and it is an inevitability that bankruptcy will strike him before the next election if he remotely represented a threat. Like Kew said, the money spent on getting him out of bankruptcy is poorly spent.

I see a distinct possibility of him playing the role of a spoiler in the next election given his disdain for the 2 existing opposition MPs. If and should JBJ contest any electorate that is already targeted by the SDA/WP a lose lose situation develops for the opposition where opposition votes get divided up and weakened.

If and when this worst case scenario happens, I wonder if LKY will praise JBJ.

He is already old about 82 years old. How long can he live ? The opposition needs money to support more candidates to stand for election. It is sheer waste of donation by others to clear him of bankcrupcy.

Just my thoughts on the man. What surprises me is JBJ remarks that LTK got him out of WP and served the PAP cause by refusing to help him. I’m saying this with all due respect to JBJ who has fought for a better S’pore.

First, JBJ knew he resigned on his own and LKY is wrong to say LTK got him out. Why is JBJ propagating his own enemy’s lie? Second, the arguments he uses on LTK that he is serving PAP’s cause, if applied on himself, makes it subjective who is serving PAP’s cause. JBJ paid PAP money and enriched them, his lawsuit also became his party’s lawsuit and JBJ still expected them to help him and in the end he sued his own party.

Third, JBJ seems to believe he’s the only one capable of making things happen for WP and opposition. He’s the only one who has to be out of bankruptcy, not the rest. Over the years as WP leader, he not helped his own members get out of trouble, like Gopalan Nair, Francis Seow, Tang Liang Hong etc. Later, he did not help Chee Soon Juan with his lawsuit. But he blames WP for not helping him. JBJ may be brave but the opposition cause is bigger than one man no matter how big a name he has.

*Update: Indeed someone else has. Thanks to “watchtower”, the video is now posted.