“Not a single clemency in the last 11 years,” lawyer for Yong Vui Kong, Mr M Ravi, told the crowd at Speakers’ Corner on Sunday.
The event, titled “The elected President is not a rubber stamp”, is in response to the High Court’s decision on 13 August with regards to Mr Ravi’s application for a judicial review on the powers of granting clemency. Mr Ravi’s application was made after the then-Attorney General stated that: “Although in theory it is the President who exercises the prerogative of mercy, in fact it is the Cabinet that makes the decision”.
Justice Steven Chong’s judgement agreed and said such powers “rests solely with the Cabinet.”
The judgement has raised questions of the role of the elected President and whether the Cabinet has “usurped” the President’s powers with regards to granting clemencies.
Referring to the government’s hardline policy against drug trafficking, Mr Ravi said this was precisely why “politicians cannot decide clemency process because [their] decisions are influenced by policy and not mercy.”
“Why call it ‘power’ when .. you say the President has no discretion? Why even use the word ‘power’?” Mr Ravi asked, referring to the term “presidential clemency power”.
Mr Ravi again referred to what the Law Minister, Mr K Shanmugam, had said at a public forum in April before the Court of Appeal handed down its decision and before Yong had submitted his clemency appeal to the President – “Yong Vui Kong is young. But if we say ‘we let you go’, what is the signal we are sending?”.
“You take the clemency petition and what do you decide? Die. Even before clemency petition presented, he says die,” Mr Ravi said.
“We will petition the President .. under Article 100 of the Constitution to convene a Constitutional Court … Why is this important? … Cabinet has usurped those powers [of the President].”
“The elected President, when he convenes the Constitutional Court, he uses the State’s resources, he has immense amount of resource, and you have the best experts in the world to come before the Constitutional Tribunal to deliberate.”
Also speaking at Speakers’ Corner was The Online Citizen’s Chief Editor, Mr Andrew Loh. Referring to the court’s judgement, Mr Loh said it made “no sense” to him. Referring to the provisions in the Misuse of Drugs Act (MDA), he said: “There’s a whole host of presumptions (in the MDA), at the end of which, if you are found guilty, you die. Full stop. You don’t get 20 years, you don’t get life imprisonment, you don’t get all that. You die. And it is the same people who constructed this law that now have the final say on clemency.”
Press reports on past clemencies have given the impression that it was the President which had the power to grant clemencies, Mr Loh said. “For example, President Wee Kim Wee has pardoned three people… People have written to him to thank him personally for granting the clemencies. But now we know that is all not true. He didn’t do anything at all.”
Participants at Speakers’ Corner were then urged to sign the letter to the President to convene a Constitutional Court. Copies of the letter were made available to the participants. About 50 people among the crowd signed the letters and they will be posted to the President on Monday.
Also, Mr Ravi wrote to the Singapore Prison Service last week to ask it to confirm that the deadline for Yong to submit his clemency appeal has been extended, as Justice Chong had “invited” the Prison Service to do, in light of the appeal which will be lodged with the Court of Appeal with regards to Justice Chong’s decision on the powers of clemency.
The Singapore Prison Service has yet to reply to Mr Ravi.
Yong’s original deadline to submit his appeal to the President ends this Thursday, 26 August. He could be hanged anytime after that.
Separately, the campaigners to save Yong Vui Kong from being hanged, have collected close to 100,000 signatures – both online and from Malaysians on the streets in Sabah – which will be handed to President Nathan this week.
Video of Sunday’s event at Speakers’ Corner:
Some pictures from Sunday’s event.
Pictures by Damien Chng.
Pictures by Han Thon:
HELP keep the voice of TOC alive!
If you like this article, please consider a small donation to help theonlinecitizen.com stay alive. Please note that we can only accept donations from Singaporeans. Thank you for your assistance.Do you have a flair for writing? Volunteer with us. Email us your full name and contact details to theonlinecitizen@gmail.com
There is an error msg from the link wanting to sign the petition.
Please get it write asap. I want to sign as well.
Thank You.
What a conflict of intrest, write up the law and getting to decide as well.
Idi Amin will be proud to be here.
The inherent conflict between Articles 21 and 22P of the Constitution is subtle, and it is undesirable to leave it unresolved. Everything should lead back to the fundamentals of “separation of powers” and “check and balance” and that the People should decide. It is worthwhile to remember that the People elect the president and the parliament to be the People’s representatives, but do not elect the cabinet. The latter is decided by the ruling political party. Regardless, all these organs are ultimately accountable to the People.
Therefore, I support the petition for Nathan to convene the Constitutional court provided by Article 100 without delay to address the issue. If the Constitution is defective, then it should be amended by a referendum.
prettyplace,
You can try this link:
http://www.petitiononline.com/SaveVK/petition.html
According to the Constitution, the President has the power to grant clemency, and then has no power, so said Ravi.
Very powerful speech. We are still sitting on the fence, very interesting to watch how this drama would enfold, what about our own citizens, who committed such crimes, and were already executed? How were their families faring.
Maybe the late President Wee argued strongly for the criminals to the PM and so the Cabinet decided to grant pardon.
The Chief Justice, Judges of Appeal, Judicial Commissioners and High Court Judges are appointed by the President
Can the President sacked them now ? Justice Steven Chong and the Law Minister, Mr K Shanmugam
Why ? , cos make him malu now he going to retire soon.
Think he will convene Constitutional court now ? Better petition God of Mercy
Interesting to see how the process will conclude. I agree that the decision to grant a pardon should lie with the president (not the Cabinet). But I do differ on whether the criminal deserves the death penalty or not. He is guilty of drug trafficking (which results in the destruction of many lives) and should face the penalty – that’s only fair. The whole debate about the clemency process is a smoke-screen to delay the execution of the drug trafficker. I know that some people might not like to read this. But the bottom line is that there are 2 different issues here – (1) Is the death penalty justified as a punishment for drug trafficking and (2) who should grant clemency?
@ Alternative view (But I do differ on whether the criminal deserves the death penalty or not. He is guilty of drug trafficking (which results in the destruction of many lives) and should face the penalty – that’s only fair)
You got this wrong.Check this with the World Health Organisation on the type of treatment for drug users.The problem is the original source cannot be readicated and are neede for medical purpose.Than here comes the Drug barons who use it for their illegal business. Singaore has good ties with Myanmar and there are people who may be in that business doing big time in Singapore. Go to the Yeow chow tong( former Transport Minister site) Traffickers don’t force people to take drugs. It is one’s choice to do or no to do drugs.Death sentence for murder is fine and I will agree to hang a rapist and castrate a molester. Ther are ways to stop this lucrative trade and I was given an idea by a doctor as to how to cut all these bastard drug barons from their everlasting pot of gold.Make it legal and let the price come down to nothing. Those addicted will wean themselves once they are sick of drugs and the Barons will not have a single market and no need to traffick. Make it legal and the world world will gt rid of this shit. Give it try, an alternative view from the south. Sounds weird Ahh
Honestly nathan is too weak to do anything difference. Even if he want. He need the consent from the kingmaker.
Isn’t it ironic ?
According to our Law Minister, drugs can harm a lot of innocent people that is why we have to impose the MANDATORY Death Penalty as a deterrent against drug trafficking.
Military arms can also harm a lot of innocent people if they are sold to the wrong parties like terrorists or even the militant junta. Why is it then that our Singapore Govt leaders has no shame in engaging this type of arms manufacture and sales ?
Shouldn’t we likewise impose the MDP on our Prime Minister or Defence Minister first based on the same principle of engaging in the business of causing harm to others ?
May I equally ask our sham Law Minister what message is our Govt sending out by also getting involved in the business of arms manufacture and sale to others like the Myammar’s military junta ?
Is there any moral difference between arms trafficking and drugs trafficking ?
Hmmmmmmmm…… the 1st PM was a lawyer.
Hmmmmmmmm…… the 2nd an economist.
Hmmmmmmmm….. the present one a Brig Gen.
Lawyer sues, economist talk money, general talks about power….. Hmmmmmmm……..
face facts. pap selected nathan, he was never voted in! on top of that, they bribe him $3mil a year to sit there and shut up.
you think he’s going to say or do anything?
Wouldn’t be surprise if the PM or PM will instruct Law Minister to rush a New Bill to be passed in parliament to amend Article 21 and 22 of the constitution such that presidential clemency is scrapped and clemency for MDP is granted only by PM or Cabinet. The 82 MPs and Ministers will have to vote in approval of the New Bill because of Party Whip.
Malaysia also have Mandatory Death Penalty for drug traffickers, including those from Sabah awaiting trial/hanging. What are the Sabah MPs and lawyers doing about it? Keep your own house in order first. When you are successful in your petitions and saving the hangings, then come to Singapore to share your expertise; otherwise you are just the red herrings for cheap publicity.
Unless the Parliament amends or changes the Constitution on a certificate of emergency, it is “nasi sudah jadi bubur” (rice has turned into porridge already). You must be able to separate the wheat from the chaff. The loud noises generated for public sympathy and publicity are not the same as Article 22p of the Singapore Constitution. Nobody can change the Constituion without 2/3 of the MPs votes. Once you tamper with Article 22p, there will be a tremendous impact on the criminal justice system in Singapore. There will be endless petitions by drug traffickers, murderers, robbers, prisoners, ex-prisoners, family members/relatives of those who already suffered death, etc. Everyone of them have a sob story to tell. Who to believe and who not to be believed, etc, will come in. Where do we end from here? If it is so simple as campaigners say, there is no reason why the gahmen would not spare his life. Be pragmatic. I am all for pro-life.
If Nathan is not going to act now, his name will go down in history as the person planted in the Presidential Office to allow the removal of the power of the Singapore President.
All subsequent presidents will not have what was once constitutionally the power of the Singapore President.
Nathan, you need to stand up, not for yourself but for the sake of all citizens. If you still have a heart that is.
Mr. Alternative View,
You are right to point out there are 2 different matters here, namely the death penalty and clemency. But are you agreed there there is a defect in the law on clemency as pointed out by many lawyers, the main defect being the law maker is also the clemency giver.
If you are agreed, dont you think that the young man should be given the benefit of the defective law becasue, as the present law stands, there is no clemency, and yet the law says there is clemency. Until the defect is rectified, it is dangerous to carry out the hanging.
This exercise will dig out all the rubbish our “wayang” parliament has been doing secretly behind the Singaporeans back. Yet huge amount of monies are spent to pay them who are our lawmakers. Why such a state of affair? Perhaps LKY will need to face the court to answer questions which we citizens would like to know.
Perhaps all hanging should halt from now on until the situation is sorted out. Why always in a hurry to kill? Are the PAP lawmakers that blood-thirty? having paid in terms of millions?
Bravo to all the brave human beings putting this issue out for resolve. Godspeed and May the Force be with you ALL.
Thanks to TOC and Ravi for organizing this and keeping the pressure up.
Because I know something about it, I would like to expand on Ravi’s reference to the spirit of the law, which he mentioned correctly to include the history behind some of the things you read in the Constituion. But before that, there are also other ways to determine the spirit of the law by making educated inferences from constitutional design.
Part V, Chapter I in which Article 22P is located carries the header “The President”, and is the part of the Constituion that enumerates the powers of the President. Article 22P is titled “Grant of Pardons”. Putting the two together, it is then reasonable to infer that the President does have some power in the granting of pardons. (This may seem obvious, but constitutional design has deliberate built-in features for the purposes of accomplishing certain goals.) This point is not dissimilar to how Acts of Parliament are named. For example, the Internal Security Act is so named to deal solely with threats to internal security; manes of Acts, titles of sections, etc. are all legally significant. When Singaporeans express outrage over its use for political ends, it is really “natural law/natural justice” in action. The same applies here.
Further, (constitutional) subclause 22P(2) confirms this in that it contains the (grammatical) subclause “so that the Cabinet may advise the President on the exercise of the power conferred on him by clause (1)”.
The problem before us is that it is not explicit what the President’s powers are. But he does have some power and some discretion.
Steven Chong is dead wrong.
And no, the information contained in this post is not just a matter of this being “best way to organize the details in the Constitution”; it’s organized in such a way for specific purposes.
I would like to draw TOC readers’ attention to this discussion in Yawning Bread, if you haven’t already been aware of it, in which comments are made regarding how binding the President is on any advice direction given to him. (The Queen Victoria comment.)
I will continue with some of the history portion that will tell us more about the spirit of the law in my next post.
Now we know the “erected” Singapore President has no power oevr clemency, Singaporeas must demand from the “cock” whether he has POWER to know, interfer and give a final approval of (thus protect the Singapore financial reserves) the major investment dealings (above Sin $100 million on one count or in related dealings for the same project) of GIC and Temasek.
The Law Minister said the Singapore is NOT a nation but a city to the international lawyers’ meeting.
Then LKY said the National pledge is not a “pledge” but just an “aspiration”.
Later, LKY in Goh Keng Swee’s funernal blew up that it was Mr. Goh who had decided to leave Malaysia totally.
Wow, what else Singaporeans do not know yet?
Let’s me guess and please add more:
1. The NET assets in Temasek Holdings and GIC are minus $100 billion so technically, each and every Singaporeans are owing the government $20,000!
2. LHL is not a man, not even a woman, not even a Ah Kua (sissy), he is of “undetermined sex”…depending when his balls come out….economic data good then his 2 hairy balls shine, flooding in Orchard River, then his balls disappeared all together….
3…….
@Lord Robert: “Make it legal and let the price come down to nothing. Those addicted will wean themselves once they are sick of drugs …”
When the price is almost nothing, are you sure those addicted will make the effort to fight the monkey on their backs and wean themselves off the habit, something that have been proven to be hard enough at the current lucrative prices, sir?
can i sign the petition to get the President to convene a Constitutional Court somewhere online?
our govt cannot like this ler, wait Malaysia say those people who signed pass treaties oso actually got no power. so all are null & void.
lol…
Look at it from the garmen’s perspective, it’s much cheaper to Hang the person than to keep him alive.
Forgot to post the link to the Yawning bread discussion.
http://yawningbread.wordpress.com/2010/08/21/sleeping-with-strangers-part-1/#more-1903
Now for a historical perspective. In this post, any reference made to the “modern state” is meant to be contrasted to the “feudal state” as well as other non-modern states ruled by absolute monarchies, religious leaders, village chieftains etc.
If there was a defining moment that marked the beginning of the modern state in Britain, it has got to be the Industrial Revolution there which prompted the promulgation of a slew of new laws, mostly to protect the interests of the new mercantile class as well as to afford some protection for the new classes of labour. (The Industrial Revolution was a new economy that replaced the feudal economy.)Simultaneously, the powers of the monarchy were being rolled back while Parliament’s powers correspondingly increased. (In truth, this was a transition that took several centuries prior even to the Industrial Revolution unlike in Britain’s colonies where it was an almost overnight transformation.)
Democracy was being born even while Britain remained a constitutional monarchy.
But the important point here is that the monarchy which had previously enjoyed absolute power now had to share – note the word “share” – power with and often even defer to (as in the case of advice given to the head of state by the cabinet) Parliament in general, and the Executive in particular based on the rationale that both those bodies represent the will of the people in a democracy; the monarchy defers to the will of the people in rubber stamping the Cabinet’s advice or direction.
That is the reason that Singapore’s Heads of State almost always act on the advice given to him by the Cabinet if that is what is prescribed in the Constitution.
(If we were in Britain, I would have stopped writing there. But this is Singapore, and it is highly debatable that the Cabinet actually represents the will of the people because of the manipulation of the electoral system, the media and all our public institutions to assure the PAP a resounding victory at every elections. Neither is Singapore any democracy.)
A question such as, “Aren’t we now arguing for reversing this historical process when we argue for the President to be returned the powers vested in his office?” is a valid one.
My answer is to look at exactly what is happening when, the Cabinet that is already viewed as having power over every institution in Singapore, is being given even more power by the courts.
That, and not our arguments in the President’s favour, is absolute power for the Cabinet and an ongoing return to a monarchy-like setup.
If Singapore is already a totalitarian state, then we can thank judges like Steven Chong and Chan Sek Keong for making it even more so.
Advice, in constitutional law, is formal, usually binding, instruction given by one constitutional officer of state to another.
Especially in parliamentary systems of government, Heads of state(eg. our president) often act on the basis of advice issued by prime ministers or other government ministers.
CONSTITUTION OF THE REPUBLIC OF SINGAPORE
Discharge and performance of functions of President
21. —(1) Except as provided by this Constitution, the President shall, in the exercise of his functions under this Constitution or any other written law, ACT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE ADVICE OF THE CABINET or of a Minister acting under the general authority of the Cabinet.
(2) The President may act IN HIS DISCRETION in the performance of the following functions:
(a) the appointment of the Prime Minister in accordance with Article 25;
(b) the withholding of consent to a request for a dissolution of Parliament;
(c) the withholding of assent to any Bill under Article *5A, 22E, 22H, 144 (2) or 148A;
*Article 5A was not in operation at the date of this Reprint.
(d) the withholding of concurrence under Article 144 to any guarantee or loan to be given or raised by the Government;
(e) the withholding of concurrence and approval to the appointments and budgets of the statutory boards and Government companies to which Articles 22A and 22C, respectively, apply;
(f) the disapproval of transactions referred to in Article 22B (7), 22D (6) or 148G;
(g) the withholding of concurrence under Article 151 (4) in relation to the detention or further detention of any person under any law or ordinance made or promulgated in pursuance of Part XII;
(h) the exercise of his functions under section 12 of the Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act (Cap. 167A); and
(i) any other function the performance of which the President is authorised by this Constitution to act IN HIS DISCRETION.
(Now, let’s see an example of clause i at work)
Example:
Restraining order under Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act
22I. The President, acting IN HIS DISCRETION, may cancel, vary, confirm or refuse to confirm a restraining order made under the Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act (Cap. 167A) where the ADVICE of the Cabinet is CONTRARY to the recommendation of the Presidential Council for Religious Harmony.
Written in another form, it will be:
Where the ADVICE of the Cabinet is CONTRARY to the recommendation of the Presidential Council for Religious Harmony,the President, acting IN HIS DISCRETION, may cancel, vary, confirm or refuse to confirm a restraining order made under the Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act (Cap. 167A)
This is one of the instances as stipulated by the constitution where the president can act in his own discretion.
Let’s move to Article 22P.
Grant of pardon, etc.
22P. —(1) The President, as occasion shall arise, may, ON THE ADVICE OF THE CABINET—
(a) grant a pardon to any accomplice in any offence who gives information which leads to the conviction of the principal offender or any one of the principal offenders, if more than one;
(b) grant to any offender convicted of any offence in any court in Singapore, a pardon, free or subject to lawful conditions, or any reprieve or respite, either indefinite or for such period as the President may think fit, of the execution of any sentence pronounced on such offender; or
(c) remit the whole or any part of such sentence or of any penalty or forfeiture imposed by law.
(2) Where any offender has been condemned to death by the sentence of any court and in the event of an appeal such sentence has been confirmed by the appellate court, the President shall cause the reports which are made to him by the Judge who tried the case and the Chief Justice or other presiding Judge of the appellate court to be forwarded to the Attorney-General with instructions that, after the Attorney-General has given his opinion thereon, the reports shall be sent, together with the Attorney-General’s opinion, to the Cabinet so that the Cabinet may ADVISE the President on the exercise of the power conferred on him by clause (1).
(President receive report-> Send report to AG with instruction to attach AG’s opinion and send together to-> Cabinet which will then advise the President on the execise of the power.
(No way is it written that he may do so on his discretion, hence Article 21(2)(i)does not apply here, instead Article 21(1) will apply:
21. —(1) Except as provided by this Constitution, the President shall, in the exercise of his functions under this Constitution or any other written law,
ACT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE ADVICE OF THE CABINET or of a Minister acting under the general authority of the Cabinet.
Under the Interpretation Act (29),
Construction of enabling words
29. —(1) Where a written law confers powers on any person to do or enforce the doing of any act or thing, such powers shall be understood to be also conferred as are reasonably necessary to enable the person to do or enforce the doing of the act or thing.
Interpreting in another form with additions in caps,
where a written law “DOES NOT” confer powers on any person to do or enforce the doing of any act or thing, such powers shall “NOT” be understood to be also conferred as are reasonably necessary to enable the person to do or enforce the doing of the act or thing.
Cheers,
Kuan Han
As if this ruling hasn’t sparked off enough, I now turn to another potentially controversial matter. I quote from this report.
http://www.hrdc.net/sahrdc/hrfeatures/HRF135.htm
[Quote]Additional information was released in 2003 following an embarrassing admission by Singapore’s former premier, Mr. Goh Chok Tong, during an interview with the BBC that he was unaware of the number executed because he had “more important issues to worry about.” His initial estimate placed the number of executions occuring before October 2003 at 70 or 80. His office later “corrected” this figure as being only 10.[Endquote]
If 22P stipulates that Cabinet, by virtue of its advisory capacity in the granting of pardons, is already directly involved in the clemency process and this is held to be true, isn’t it puzzling that the then prime minister could have grossly mis-estimated the number of appeals for pardons he and his cabinet members supposedly turned down?
(There is no provision in this Article for ‘a Minister acting under the general authority of the Cabinet’ to function in this capacity.)
Is Cabinet really involved in this matter or has this function been outsourced – unconstitutionally – to another advisory body to the Prseident with the instruction that all appeals for clemency are to be turned down making the Cabinet’s involvement unnecessary?
Non-pardons sure do seem to be the foregone conclusions in and this would seem consistent with the rampant attitudes in the judiciary that makes them see court cases as coming to them on a high speed conveyor belt.
This is too bothersome for the Cabinet and Goh Chok Tong very ably demonstrated the PAP government’s callous disregard for human life when he said that he had “more important issues to worry about”.
The one thing that got me silently fuming and hence spent the entire night reading up on the constitution to confirm all the views that had been brought up is this:
Since the judiciary have expressed the interpretation of the powers behind presidential clemency, is to be used in accordance with the advice of the Cabinet,
and the whole saga had become a mish mash of alternative political parties coming in(not on purpose, of course) and the abolishment of the mandatory death penalty, a sacred cow of the legal process being brought up not too recently,
hence the Government’s firm insistence in stating that the clemency is dependent on the advice of the Cabinet,
and that the child’s life is PARAMOUNT;
what is stopping the relevant parties to send out the petition letters to each and everyone of the PAP MPs in their relevant GRCs and SMCs and for TOC to plead through this channel for them to use their rights to ask to be involved in the clemency process rather than a direct petition to the Istana?
Frankly, after reading the constitution and the interpretation act concurrently, I am of the thought that the clemency process does not actually go through the approval of the entire cabinet, but that of a officer/minister given authority by the cabinet to do so.
Hence if the MPs bring the issue up during Parliament and ask to be involved in the clemency process/appeal, it is legal and reasonable as according to the constitution, yes no?
If the MPs did not bring up the issue at all even when petitions are sent to each and everyone of them; then in such a situation, should we convene a tribunal to question the current interpretation of the constitution as being able to fulfill its responsibility of being the fundamental set of laws set on behalf of the people of Singapore.
No wonder Singaporeans are the most unhappy lot. Lawmakers are manipulating the “wayang” parliament for the PAP own agenda not the people’s. Should we vote the PAP out once and for all before things get worst?
Looks like the President got less power than MM. Perhaps MM should be renamed Emperor, PM Crown Prince and President the Emperor’s Doorman First Class.
Kuan Han’s view is right.
Parliament take time to amend law.In the mean time,send clemency petition to MM, PM and other ministers for Vui Kong.
Hi, I know this is late but I managed to record most of the speeches by the TOC guy and by Ravi(except for one time when Iaccidentally hit the pause button for a couple of seconds). If anyone can fill in the few moments of “missed speech”, feel free to. Did not manage to make it for the dinner after that because I’d to rush off to do something.
Unfortunately, I do not have the time to clean it so here is the mp3 in unedited form and in zip file. You have to download both files because Google does not allow me to host files more than 20mb each:
https://sites.google.com/site/rojakgirl/hong-lim-park-22nd-august
Please redistribute or something to ease the strain on the bandwith.
Thank you! =)
Rojakgirl
So flaw … since school time we were taught and informed of the clemency power of president, be it here or that of other countries. Yet now a single statement from PAP can overrules that, i.e. PAP is able to overwrite any rules as they seem appropriate, a dangerous move to consolidate more power
@Alan Wong 23 August 2010
You are absolutely right in comparing drug trafficking to arms trafficking. Both have the same objectives – to maim or kill people. Morality seems to have different meanings for the MIWs.
First the rush job to release the reserves at the suggestion of the PM and Finance minister and now this…Nathan looks like a rubber stamp whether he likes it or not. The onus is now on him to prove that the presidential office is indeed a check and balance instead of of rubber stamp. On the other hand, it does look like the cabinet is bent on usurping as much powers as they can while they can.
1)Democracy index of Singapore , Rank position : 82 in the world:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy_Index
2)A parliamentary republic or parliamentary constitutional republic is a type of republic which operates under a parliamentary system of government – meaning a system with no clear-cut separation between the executive and legislative branches, but with a clear differentiation between the head of government and the head of state and with the head of government holding real power
Baby Boomer
There is one difference. If I force you to take drugs, you get addicted. If I force you to kill someone, will you get addicted?
So which one is more harmful?
lobo76
A Drug Lord enticed mules to traffic drugs.
A Businessman paid an assassin to kill a competitor.
Which is more harmful?
Aged Boomer
I assume you are also baby boomer? if not, pls use a more different nick.
Even though the answer to your question is obvious, I will answer only if you answer mine first.
lobo76
“Even though the answer to your question is obvious,….”
Thanks for answering my question and in doing so you had also answered your own question which the answer is the opposite !
just some food for thought with regards to the number of signatures. As a stand alone number, 100,000 over signatures is very impressive. However, as a statistic, it’s demoralizingly low. In a nation of 4 million Singaporeans, that’s about 2.5% only. Add on Sabah’s populations and this number as a statistic dwindles even more.
IF we are to really make an impact, we need more signatures from both young and old, across the broadwalk of society. People of influence need to step up as well. Heads of various public societies and associations, religious organizations etc… If you know such people, approach them to make a stand as well.
@Democracy index , Parliamentary Republic: Adding on to you post, if you don not mind:
Head of State (in our case)= The President of Singapore
Head of Government(in our case)= The Prime Minister of Singapore
Second alternative view’s comment. I personally think it doesn’t matter who passed the judgment. As a trafficker, he could potential kill more people than you could ever imagine. He deserved death. Period.
Alan Wong,
Thank you for mentioning about PAP selling arms to murderous Myanmar generals to kill their own people.thus making a huge mockery of a PAP minister very righteous public declaration of not hurting innocent people.
Yes,it was after 8.8.1988 when murderous generals killed many students,civilians in Yangon,the world watched in silience as murderous generals imposed total block of news report fr Yangon.
Then what happened,Singapore Chartyered Industry sent the first shipment of ammunition fr oversea to the generals,this was reported in the Far eastern Economic Review,PAP government refused to comment on this report.
I myself shall nere forgive the persons responsible for this decision,it is previopus human lives my friends.
All those who assisted in the killing of so many human lives should meet the creators and give accounts to it,in due course.
PAP’s claim not hurting innocent people,yes so long as it wins votes for PAP only.
I am simply amazed that some here go on ranting about constitutional law and what-not.
We have a constitution that is interpreted by the presiding judges and who are the judges. WHo appointed them? It is truer to label it as being ersatz and one that favours incumbents.
Is it not a conflict of interests and most likely a travesty of justice when an AG is made the Chief Justice?
Rule of law – my foot! When intellectuality pretends to be intelligence this is the way it is lah.
PS – Muse over this: is it not also peddling drugs when doctors or pharmacies dish out prescriptions or … who gave it legality?
To me it appears like they are LEGALIZED drug pushers.
President? What president?
We had one???
Everything that is done is done to protect the PAP’s power over the honeypots of the country-those institutions which make wealth for the Nation. So when you complain that the Ministers and President have mockingly large salaries, the PAP present you with a Salary Review Committee whose members are clones of themselves but not actual PAP members. When you think that a good President can act as a bulwark against the greed of the PAP members, Jayakumar sprank up to remind you that he still has to toe the Law as promulgated by the PAP.My fellow citizens, recall that one wrong word from you will send you to a cell without trial or will have you face a judge who is the bulldog of the PAP. In other words you are tightly watched and tightly gagged. Over the 50 years PAP and their relatives and friends have become managers of the wealth producing State Institutions making magnificent money as salaries and fees. They will not allow any of you to stray inside and witness and disrupt what a fortune producing machinery they have wrought. So understand that Review Committee and the elected President are created to ensure a secure environment for the Ruling Party to continue the status quo at the honey pots of the country. Real change will only come when we as a Society are willing to lose our lives and livelihoods like in Egypt, Tunisia and Libya. Mere shuffling with the existing systems just shuffles how the ISD will deal with you and how the judges will deal with your indiscretions.
When we as a Society are confronted with many many more cardbox collecting citizens in the midst of glittering towers of wealth, then you will have to take the requisite action, for then you will have lost everything.
Don’t put much hope in the Ministerial and Presidential salaries review committee, nor even in the elected President. These are battlements to safeguard the hold that the Ruling Party and its cohort have on the system of fee-taking for managing the country’s wealth producing assets. Suharto’s Indonesia used to own the assets outright. Here the rule of law necessitates a different game plan.
Even a seemingly non-monetary action such as clemency for a deathrow person is denied the President,is stopped by the underlings of the PAP, the judge at the hearing. Why? To show that they have absolute power over us.One by one, the check and balance is demolished. I tell you my fellow citizen, we are in shit. We should petition the UN Human Rights Council to oversee the situation here in Singapore, as it is now intolerable.