everyone?
including durai as well?
what about our home affair minister
did he comply with
THE LAW?
if he did not
how come his junoirs get
THE BOOT
and demotion?
law passed by
PARLIAMENTs?
who in charged of parliament?
did the parliament get to vote in the
IR casino resorts?
did the mental1 get charged
for makin a mokery out of the high court judicial system
if not?
why not?
how come a kangoroo t-shirt wearers
got fined and jailed
which is more serious?
1 who blast into a high court unannouced during a proceedings in progress
or the silent 1s who just donned some kangaroo t-shirts
you tell/teach me
mr law minister
for i had to explain to my nieces and nephew
why
some laws are different
from the above?

The parliament is the law and which party dominates the entire parliament? the answer is pretty clear cut here. The law is never a justified law anymore when its been deeply critisized by the IBA, not that the singaporeans does not know whats been happening here are making us a real laughing stock to the world out there.

1. why different countries have different laws for same crime/scenario?
2. why the term repeal exist?
3. why laws sometimes get repealed?
4. why new laws sometimes get passed / changed?
5. can 2 judge give different sentencing or verdict?
6. can there be no bias?

and there you have it.
my 2 cents or doubts.

Yeah…we had better obey EVERY law that is passed.

That means if one day, if somehow a law is passed that all non-elites are to jump down from the top of our flats for the benefit of the country, we all must do so unquestioningly because the decision makers cannot be wrong.

Dogs of familees start barking again. Who let the dogs out by the way?

Yes!

Everyone obeys the LAW,

IF

the Law upholds JUSTICE!

And the Court delivers JUSTICE.

patriot

Let there be a day to come for every working citizens to donate 20% of their salaries toward assisting those poors and unfortunate ones when the familees fall. Enough is enough!

are laws determine by the ruling party and is it even more so if the ruling party only have like two opposition mp against them?

will ruling party make laws to their advantage?

if today a party for example pap can make law to their advantage, next time if another party like wp or tan kin lian is majority can they do the same?

it will not to fair if things are these ways.

or there is no such thing as no matter who is the ruling party they cannot make law to their advantage?

or the judges are more powerful then any person or any party as they are the only fair and independent body?

I thought K. Shanmugam’s statement should read:

“We have a “PAP” system where laws are passed by “PAP” and everyone obeys the law.”

Who’s kidding??

do not know if one day when lky passed away will singapore see changes.

like more people speaking up and doing the right things.

or if one day when Parliament has party with about 50% seats each will we see things like what is happening in taiwan? fighting always happen.

the newspaper say taiwan current president is a person who is very go by the book type no matter what. we take it that this is really the truth.

will this type of policy work?

means can politics be really fair to everyone. or politics will always be dark.

In the CNA newsclip, before Shanmugam is interviewed (as per quote above), the journalist says that “Law Minister K Shanmugam emphasised that if someone wants a particular law changed, he should do so by getting elected into Parliament.”

To me, this is such a dismissive, almost flippant, even elitist remark. There is a difference between wanting a law changed and being able to express that desire, vs having the powers to make/change the laws (which is what getting elected into Parliament, as the Legislative and Executive organs of State is supposed to enable).

This is supposed to be a representative democracy and ultimately the Parliament’s aim is to serve the citizens/public interest. That kind of remark makes me wonder if they really want to listen to the voices of the people; engage in a honest citizen participation process and one that’s not the minefield that it is (in terms of what can or cannot be done).

Don’t be an ostrich with its head stuck in the mud!

what shanmugam said is simply a polite way of telling truth. if you want to change the law join politics and get elected into parliament. then you can make any laws you want, or change any laws you want.

next question….

Law Minister K Shanmugam is just a yes men a PAP team player, at least he don’t openly offend people like the Transport Mininter Raymond Lim who think we are all dumb a$$es

i am confused. His statement doesn’t make sense. He says that it is wrong to demonstrate and protest to express displeasure with a certain law. But at the same time we have Speaker’s Corner which now allows for demonstration – ie the gahment recognizes that people will demonstrate and protest when they can do so legally. So… what is he talking about?!

The law is just and fair, right ? If it is fair, Took Leng How would have not gone to the gallow !!! The law is fine-tune, to prevent the able oppositions such as Dr Chee and especially the late Mr JBJ, from fighting their cause. This is called Pap Law, executive and judiciary are under the same umbrella. Union is under the wrong side, union chief can be minister, is it conflict of interest ??

The Government equals the Law, so to mean the Government is the Law.

I thought the Law means Justice and to deliver justice.

No wonder we see LAW in every aspect of our livings But seldom justice.

It’s all because, plebiean like me does not understand the intricacy and sophistry of the RULE OF LAW.

patriot

I thought the law is meant to protect the little people?

Oh, we have Rule of Law alright, as in that the Law rules us, not Parliament. Parliament is so busy defending the integrity of the laws that they are not really bothering to amend the internals of those laws themselves.

Dun come and tell us all these crap. Sounds all good and blah blah. Why dun you politicians show some good examples by first abiding by the laws, whatever they are, huh? And besides, what good are these laws? If they make a mockery of the citizens. Are you insulting us because we dun have your kind of salaries, we are not politicians, you really think we are stupid? Is this an INSULT? Its like ‘Mock and Insult since 1965, you can rely on us for that!’

that’s what happens when you get a pragmatic goverment to run a small country with no natural resources, but relies heavily on the human population. What will next generation do to this nation? How will they run it? Only time will tell.

Quote: “We have a constitutional system where laws are passed by Parliament ”

Is that so? Constitutional???

Why is CSC arguing about some laws breaking the constitution. such laws as freedom of speech and gathering vs wearing Ts which is perfectly individual choice and selection.

There has been no counter-argument about this topic since CSC raise it out during the court sessions which saw sentence passed, an ex-Singaporean lawyer jailed, people fined heavily.

The Law must obey the Constitution, in both spirit and letter.

We don’t have Rule of Law in Singapore. We have Rule by Law instead.

Hey you want to post confusing stuff that’s fine, just don’t take up so much space lah, by the time I ignore and scroll down to the next comment wasting so much space.

Thanks to the 66% this is what you get when people sold off their rights.
Anything that papee says IS law.

If next time they pass a law that all ministers will be paid 1 billion annual salary while all common people will be paid $300, everyone will have to obey ok?

What has the Singapore judiciary achieved?

Have they safeguarded the citizens’ constitutional rights to freedom of speech and assembly? No

Have they improved its own reputation? No

Did they set a deterrence after the convictions of the recent contempt of court cases? No evidence of that so far

Instead, Gopalan Nair has since rebewed his attacks, WSJ remains unrepetent, youtube videos of Mohd Shafie, Isrizal and John Tan showed them walking out of prison smiling amid cheers from supporters.

If the reputation of the Singapore judiciary is truly first-class, then there’s no compulsion to jail its own citizens for wearing T-shirts…

Not only a court verdict has to be just and fair, but also seen to be just and fair.

Why the court are presided by judges only? Where are the jury?

In colonial days, Singapore courts had jury. Guess who disband the jury?

Hong Kong likewise inherited the same British legal system. Hong Kong is now part of China, but its courts still have jury.

Why Singapore courts are different from other courts of the Commonwealth countries? Why Singapore rely on judges decision and not common men’s decision? Think and you will see why?

This is damn bloody OBVIOUS who is behind all these arrangements just to protect himself and his party. The IBA should kick us out of their association since many attempts to bring our system in place are not just being ignored but instead being challenged.

Whose Law is that?

Tell that to S Saw and C Sim, students who love SG to bits.

We can have the jury if the jury is rational enough. Just like you can have a democracy, but vote in Hamas.

[i]Leanne on January 5th, 2009 12.37 am We can have the jury if the jury is rational enough. Just like you can have a democracy, but vote in Hamas.
now you want a jury service that is rational enough?
for who again?
for YOU
onced more
where you want the juries to hang every rapist/robbers
and maybe
shoplifters as well?
jury are individuals
who think with their brain and their soul
right to their guts feelin
if we want a robot
we do not need a jury
which is
WHY
singapore
being a democratic soceity
have no JUROR
till TODAY…
where you graduate from?
pap kindergardens institue?

Voters are not always rational. The Palestinians for example. Jury members may not always rational either. Which institute did you hail from? What have you done to advance the cause of “freedom” in Singapore?

When you are sure of your ability and intregrity , you will willingly agree to peer appraisal or scrutiny by external independant parties. By abolishing appeal to the privy council or any other international court our courts have effectively said no to peer appraisal. Its like a dictator claiming that he is loved by all.

i will be very afraid/worry if the people had learned to exercise their sense of right and wrong.

democracy must begin with the respect of the rule of law – from the heart of the ….people.

“Jury members may not always rational either.”

If that is so, how do some advanced countries choose to adopt this system.

What makes you so sure that judges do not have their own bias and as a very learned species of people with utmost eloquence, with tonnes of case law and statues behind them, it is not too difficult for them to justify whatever judgement they wish to mete out.

21st century knowledge based society lah. It is not too difficult to spot holes if they are any. Good law will always be respected and you do not need the Minister, the AG and the Chief Justice to emphasize this important point at the same time.

LAW DOES NOT EQUAL JUSTICE.

it depends how safe you want
if you want to be jury, you must also let any tom, dick, hairy be your jury when your are in court

~~~~~ stay safe
tip #1: Use fake email address
tip #2: Use anonymous web servers or proxies (google for list)

You know… the most incredible thing about the PAP is not the economical miracle because Hong Kong and other countries managed to develop without our kind of government.

The most amazing thing as demonstrated by the Town council fund management is PAP’s ability to make people believe that they are getting diamonds when in reality they were given lemons.

Don’t you agree?

The constitutional issue is Article 14:

[start]

Freedom of speech, assembly and association
14. —(1) Subject to clauses (2) and (3) —

(a) every citizen of Singapore has the right to freedom of speech and expression;

(b) all citizens of Singapore have the right to assemble peaceably and without arms; and

(c) all citizens of Singapore have the right to form associations.

[end]

While Article 14(1) is subject to subclauses 14(2) and 14(3), which are:

[start]

(2) Parliament may by law impose —

(a) on the rights conferred by clause (1) (a), such restrictions as it considers necessary or expedient in the interest of the security of Singapore or any part thereof, friendly relations with other countries, public order or morality and restrictions designed to protect the privileges of Parliament or to provide against contempt of court, defamation or incitement to any offence;

(b) on the right conferred by clause (1) (b), such restrictions as it considers necessary or expedient in the interest of the security of Singapore or any part thereof or public order; and

(c) on the right conferred by clause (1) (c), such restrictions as it considers necessary or expedient in the interest of the security of Singapore or any part thereof, public order or morality.

(3) Restrictions on the right to form associations conferred by clause (1) (c) may also be imposed by any law relating to labour or education.

[end]

Read how CSJ responded to AG, CJ and LawMin.

http://yoursdp.org/index.php/perspective/special-feature/1681-chee-responds-to-cj-ag-and-law-minister

The more the Mugam or Lingum opens his mouth, the more I am afraid.

Afraid that this is really the decline of the real values in our society;

Afraid that this is the degradation of our system of government;

Afraid that this is the demise of our society which has been built-up so painstakingly over the last 50 years by our hardworking old folks, who are now being sidelined and/or discarded by the elites and the boot-lickers for their own selfish interests, under the guise of national interests.

Afraid that one day I will have to emigrate to another country, for the sake of my children’s future.

So, HELP US GOD! We need your divine intervention urgently.

“Sometimes, the whole purpose and meaning of the Rule of Law is gone.”

Good laws ought to be respected. However, bad pieces of law should not command the same degree of respect accorded to good law, even though they possess the ‘good name’ of this thing called law.

And talking about the whole purpose and meaning, indeed we really need to know the purpose and meaning else we will be led astray..

“We have a constitutional system where laws are passed by Parliament and everyone obeys the law.”

21st century demands 21st understanding & mindset. Once law is passed, it is very difficult to undo – there are too many faces to save.

Indeed, we do have very nice & serious concepts (institutions) in the form of what we call constitutional system & Parliament.