If it’s irrelevant like you said, why do the people still uphold it today? You are telling me you don’t deserve life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness?

STEPPING ON ALL YOU PEOPLE OVER better still, what is walkover?

To count walkover results as votes for PAP is questionable too.

Singapore is neither a British empire nor colonial government after it gained her independence. Where to declare war to begin with?

chewing gum is a crime. <- those who kena chewing gum on their pants and shoes will understand. In reality, not chewing gum. Selling/importing chewing gum is a crime.

petrol tank not filled up when crossing the causeway is a crime. <- Its 3/4 tank. No need to be 100% filled up. The government actually allows 0% also.

smoking at non-designated places is a crime. <- It would indeed be a crime not to put smokers in the same room enjoying all that second hand smoke which smokers find so attractive.

watching videos with fiends in private is a crime. <- Uh, not sure what you’re referring to…. is it some sort of a fetish?

standing around with friends is a crime. <- I’d like to support guys standing around lady friends in ladies toilet but I really got to draw a line here.

wearing kangaroo tee shirts is a crime. <- Its like a friend of mine who used his middle finger to dig his itchy nose in public and kena smacked by a total stranger. The rest of us didn’t really have much sympathy even though we were fervent anti-violence campaigners……

…….so many more …………

how to see anything right in these?

The American declaration of independence was to overthrow a colonial government. May I ask are you declaring war on the Government of Singapore?

P.s. It was interesting that the words in his original draft was “sacred and undeniable” but was amended to “self-evident cos it wasn’t really undeniable. The British did deny them (and then attempted to uphold the denial and failed).

More importantly, you fail to note the most important lines which are next 2 sentences which you did not quote, the dictate of which you misunderstand.
——————————————
On the second quote, you fail to understand the full import of what Thomas Jefferson desired (as per his 4 April 1819 response letter which the quote was contained to provide a definition of liberty, et al) vs his realism. Ironic too that in the letter which the quote on liberty is set, Jefferson himself apologises for going into political speculation.

Perhaps the following quote might serve you better…

“The constitution, on this hypothesis, is a mere thing of wax in the hands of the judiciary, which they may twist and shape into any form they please. It should be remembered, as an axiom of eternal truth in politics, that whatever power in any government is independent, is absolute also; in theory only, at first, while the spirit of the people is up, but in practice, as fast as that relaxes. Independence can be trusted nowhere but with the people in mass.” – Thomas Jefferson in another 1819 letter.

Only the people “in mass” can one trust your independence. An individual who determines his own interpretation of the law without the will of the masses will never be upheld.

Of liberty I would say that, in the whole plenitude of its extent, it is unobstructed action according to our will. But rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add ‘within the limits of the law,’ because law is often but the tyrant’s will, and always so when it violates the right of an individual. -Thomas jefferson

Hoping this help you to better understand more about law.

Agreed. But who is responsible for determining if a law is a law that should be abided? If a murderer thinks a law against murder is unjust, does it mean he or she is right?

Since when did Singaporeans appoint CSJ or the SDP to be the party to determine which Singapore laws apply? Is he the appropriate party to determine?

Would a murderer found guilty by a judge think the judge is fair? That’s the case here, isn’t it….

It would be interesting to have a truly objective discussion about when assemblies should be legal or not, but judging by the level of discussion, that’s not going to happen on this forum.

Brain washed would be to say everything he did was right without any justification for saying so.

“Please show some support for those who have been punished by the draconian laws.”

For me to show support, I’d need a justification beyond just agreeing with everything that is said. If laws are so draconian, why is it I personally find no trouble abiding by it? Neither do my family or relatives.

Instead, having individuals individually decide when laws are “draconian” or not just on the basis to justify discriminate law-breaking is an exercise towards chaos.

That’s my tenet.

I know you personally hated CSJ, but I find their protests non violent and productive. It is so damaging to the pap they felt they had to do some thing to them. To prevent people joining them the next time, make a strong case with as much media brainwashing as possible. I am glad that Singapore still has CSJ to fight for decent human rights. Look at the electricity hikes of 22% and the numerous price increases from food to transportation. And 3 pay increases for ministers within 14 months. Singaporeans are truly short changed, yet you are still talking about affecting businesses in orchard road and tourism. Don’t link the mess in Thailand with the peaceful non violent anti price hike protests together, they are totally different theme.

Please show some support for those who have been punished by the draconian laws.

FGy

Ah Kow, you are wrong – the system in Singapore will never behave like the one in Thailand. Unlike the opposition in Thailand, this opposition “The Singapore Desperate Party” here is managed by a bunch of opportunist clowns hoping to please the foreigners and not for the sake of Singaporeans.

First you talk about judiciary now you talk about oppositions. Which is which?

You seemed to have a habit to twisting what people is trying to say and then say they are wrong. In that case, maybe you should tell me what I should say so you can then disagree with me for not saying what you want me to say.

Now that you want to twist the topic, let’s do so.

On the point about pleasing foreigners. Now here you have a government, and may be you too, who don’t believe in the concept of separation of power, between the executive, judiciary and legislature. Now why don’t you proposed that we do away with the Constitution on freedom of assembly. Why keep it there? Why not just write a Constitution that says “you are not allow to assembly under all conditions unless I (the government) or you chobolan say so”?

If all judges can do is, let’s use the current case as an example, and have the judge just do this:

If Chee and gang consist of more than 5 then
if Chee and gang make noise then
if Chee and gang not ask for permission then
if Chee and gang say nasty things then go to jail
else set them free
else set them free.

So simple right? In that case, why have a judge at all. Why not get a computer programmer write a program and save all the million of dollars. Hey not have it web-base and we don’t even need lawyers, thus saving more money?

Why not do that? Why this pretence of having a western style judiciary when one don’t believe in it?

Now let’s see, has it something to do with not wanting to scare Foreign investor away?

Ah Kow, you are wrong – the system in Singapore will never behave like the one in Thailand. Unlike the opposition in Thailand, this opposition “The Singapore Desperate Party” here is managed by a bunch of opportunist clowns hoping to please the foreigners and not for the sake of Singaporeans.

So you think Singapore’s judicial system should behave like Thailand.

The system we got here in Singapore already behaves like the one in Thailand.

So what are you talking about?

You’re right. I was merely outlining the current state of things.

If you put it on a scale, we’re on one end of the spectrum, and the other end of this spectrum would probably be any Justices appointed by the Democrat Congress in USA.

I can understand the need for the ISA when SIN went through a period of communist, colonialist and communal upheavals and unrests. Now that SIN has attained a first world nationhood, it becomes more pertinent that the ISA is obsolete and a deterrent to a more cultured civilization.

A classic example nearby is Burma where its citizens are subject to the rule of a despot, a dictator gone mad. The same fate can happen to Burma as it was for Iraq when its citizens could get help from super powers. The same goes with North Korea. SIN is just a more modern version of the renegade nations in Asia.

The test of loyalty and patriotism will be shown when SIN is engaged in defending its country or facing a national disaster like 911 in the US. The breakaway of the Soviet Union Commonwealth of States is another classic example. Maybe, SIN is too small an island to have these unrests happening.

I believe SIN-ans today are more educated and indoctrinated law-abiding citizens and for violence to erupt in peaceful demonstrations is a moot point. Only schizophrenic leaders in the context of SIN and despots in the Burmese junta would not buy my argument.

The present demonstration by a few oppositions is just a droplet in the South China Sea or the Pacific Ocean. Even China’s armed forces could handle the Tiananmen Square non- violent sit-in and the recent Tibet violent uprisings.

I don’t believe for a moment that SIN-ans are that violent, let alone vociferous in their public expression and demonstrations. This is detrimental to the culture of future patriotic knowledgeable SIN-ans. I’ve come across many SIN-ans working, living or immigrating abroad resigned to stabd up and fight for their rights.

I don’t see many assertive characters abroad or in SIN either. Many have turned their involvement in SIN affairs to apathy and complacency for the government knows what’s best for them, then why bother? I’ve cash, car, condo and comfort of living in SIN and that’s enough for myself and my family, why bother?

The increasing number of friends, relatives, students and SIN-ans at large I talked to gave me the same sad pathetic answer, even among the academics and religious leaders. Why bother? In time to come, this spread of “tiada-apa” attitude will be worst than SARS.

I trust the present new A1 leadership with a first-class Israeli trained citizen armed forces and indoctrinated NS police force will be more than adequate to handle any eventuality expeditiously and efficiently. Give it a test if SIN’s proud of having one of the finest and most modern fighting forces in the world with AWACs, F16/17/18 and a superior naval force.

So you think Singapore’s judicial system should behave like Thailand. No system is perfect. I’m just a layman, your explanation very “chim” but anyway good try. What I know is that every country has it own rule of law to make sure citizens abide to it and everyone is able to live happily side by side. But these 19 clowns thought they are untouchable and above the law which they have their own implementation feeling the existing law is “unjust law”. The story is almost the same as Thailand where certain interest group(s) is trying to shape its own agenda to incite political turmoil in Singapore.

It is because the judiciary here does not have a history of being activist and reinterpreting the letter of legislation vs parliament’s intent.

It is not the job of the judiciary here to be an activist but the fact that you have a separate legislative, judicial and executive institution, it is really the job of the judiciary to not just punish “law” breaker but also protect the rights of people. Otherwise why have judges at all? Why not just have a computer just make the judgement?

The reason for having a “Independent” judiciary is for it to make sure that Parliament (i.e. legislature) don’t make laws (statutes) that conflict with the Constitution. For example in my so call “Exaggerated” illustration (see comment 17), this is where the Judiciary role must guard against.

It is worth noting that often in Singapore, many people including those in the legal profession, for some reason or another, then to see law in very perfunctory terms. In simple term the see law in terms of prohibition of action. Yet, when Singapore adopted the English legal system, they forget that there are two components to the so-call law.

In simple term, there is the Constitution which is a body of law that is there to protect the rights of people (i.e. a set of guarantees that allow you to do things). Then there is the Statute which is a body of law pass by the legislature that generally use to “prohibit” you from doing things. The point is the prohibition should not exceed what is embodied in the Constitution. Of course, when and where a statute exceed the Constitutional right will have to be adjudicated. In a democratic system with a separation of institution, this is where the judge is expected to do his/her job.

Likewise when the executive, through its subordinate agencies like the police, even if they are given the power to make law, must not in exercising its law enforcement action that exceed (a) what is intended in the statute or (b) exceed what is expressively allowed in the constitution.

So you see the job of “reinterpreting the letter of legislation vs parliament’s intent” as you put it is not some extra circular activities of a judge, it is his/her job!

If the job of the judge is simply to tick-box the law, hey, why bother having judges at all?

But this is Singapore, what can one say about the judicial system that has not already been said!