Rilek1Corner

Tag: Dr Tan Cheng Bock

  • M Ravi Files Constitutional Challenge Against Changes To Elected Presidency

    M Ravi Files Constitutional Challenge Against Changes To Elected Presidency

    Human rights lawyer M. Ravi yesterday filed a constitutional challenge against changes to the elected presidency made last year.

    The changes, which Parliament approved last November, tighten the qualifying criteria for candidates, and include a provision to reserve a presidential election for candidates from a racial group that has not been represented in the office for five continuous terms.

    Mr Ravi argues that the changes are unconstitutional because they deprive citizens of their right to stand for public office and discriminate on the grounds of ethnicity.

    The High Court confirmed that Mr Ravi had filed an originating summons and supporting affidavit.

    A spokesman for the Attorney-General’s Chambers told The Straits Times that “it will study the papers” filed by Mr Ravi.

    Mr Ravi, currently a non-practising lawyer, said on Facebook that he filed the application in his capacity as a private citizen.

    His is the second legal challenge related to the elected presidency mounted this month.

    On May 5, former presidential candidate Tan Cheng Bock filed a challenge over whether the upcoming presidential election should be a reserved one.

     

    Unlike Dr Tan, Mr Ravi challenges the entire reserved election mechanism as unconstitutional, he said on Facebook yesterday.

    He believes that the elected presidency is not consistent with Article 12(2) of the Constitution.

    It states that unless expressly authorised by the Constitution, there shall be no discrimination against Singapore citizens on the ground only of religion, race, descent or place of birth in any law, or in the appointment to any office, or employment under a public authority.

    “The right to stand for the elected presidency should be no different from the right to participate in parliamentary elections – all citizens should be equal,” he wrote.

    “The selection of the elected candidate should be based on merit, all other relevant requirements being fulfilled.”

    Mr Ravi also contends the amendments run counter to a legal principle called the basic structure doctrine, which he says applies here.

     

    Source: www.tnp.sg

     

  • Opposition Heavyweights Lend Support To Dr Tan Cheng Bock’s Constitutional Challenge

    Opposition Heavyweights Lend Support To Dr Tan Cheng Bock’s Constitutional Challenge

    Lim Tean, Tan Kin Lian, Syafarin Sarif and I had started the initiative to publish a Non-Partisan Joint Statement in support of Dr Tan Cheng Bock’s challenge of the Constitutional change to enforce Reserved Elected Presidency based on dubious grounds.

    We wanted a Non-Partisan Joint Statement basically because we feel that this is an important matter which should include private individuals, other than politicians.

    You can add your name to this Joint Statement by sharing it in your Facebook. Let the Force be with us.

    Please join us to stop the emasculation of our Constitution! To support please like, share & comment. Also message me if you want your name added to the bottom of the statement and I will do so.

    JOINT STATEMENT MAY 11TH 2017….
    The written Constitution of Singapore should be a repository of the most cherished values we hold as a people and also a bulwark of our venerable institutions.

    Sadly, our Constitution has been subject to numerous attacks over the years .The recent episode over changes to the Elected Presidency Scheme is the latest demonstration of such an attack.

    There was never a call by any Singaporean of any ethnic group for our next President to be a Malay. If race is an important element in the choosing of an elected President, it beggars belief that it did not surface as an issue during the period when the time scheme was first conceived and the interlude of almost 7 years until it was passed into law. The scheme was not cobbled together hurriedly as has been suggested, thereby necessitating substantial changes at this time. The scheme was first mooted by Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew as far back as 15 April 1984 during a walkabout in his Tanjong Pagar Constituency, and again brought up by him during his National Day Rally speech on 19 August that year. There was intense media and public interest in the issue. On 29 July 1988, then First Deputy Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong introduced the first White Paper on the proposed scheme in Parliament. There were changes and amendments made and a second White Paper was introduced on 27 August 1990. Following a lengthy debate during the second reading of the resultant Bill on 4 October 1990, a 12-member select committee, which included key cabinet ministers was appointed to look into issues and make recommendations. The committee’s report was presented to Parliament on 18 December 1990 and, on 3 January 1991 the Bill was passed into law .

    Moreover, by 1988, the PAP had introduced the Group Representation Constituencies ( GRCs ) into the Parliamentary electoral system in Singapore. Race is the very foundation of the GRC system, as all Singaporeans are aware of.

    In the years following the last Presidential election of 2011, no PAP member ever expressed any concern that too many years had passed without Singapore having a Malay President until the issue surfaced in the President’s speech, opening Parliament in January 2016. If this issue is of such grave national importance as the PAP and the Prime Minister have made it out to be, why was this issue not put before the Singapore people in the last General Elections held in September 2015? And why has this issue not been put before the Singapore people in a referendum?

    The PAP euphemistically termed the changes made as a “refreshment “of the Scheme in the President’s speech. In reality, they amount to an over-arching arrangement to kill off competition so that the favoured candidate of the PAP will triumph at the next Presidential election. It tarnishes the institution of the Elected President which is supposed to be part of the “two-key “mechanism designed to safeguard Singapore’s financial reserves and the integrity of our civil service. It is a betrayal of their proclaimed ideal of meritocracy which calls for the best person to be elected to the position of President, and it is a desecration of the Singapore pledge penned by one of their founders S. Rajaratnam – in which Singaporeans pledge themselves as one united people regardless of race, language and religion to build a democratic society.

    We have come together as a group of concerned Singaporeans, from diverse walks in life and from a wide political spectrum, to ask Singaporeans to stand up and to protect our Constitution from constant manipulation by the PAP government to suit their selfish political needs.

    We are pleased to note that Dr Tan Cheng Bock has mounted a judicial challenge to the constitutionality of the next Presidential Election being a reserved election. Even if it is now the law that there must be a reserved election for a particular racial group if no one from that group has been President after 5 continuous terms, it is clear to everyone of us that only the Presidential election of 2023 need be a reserved election. The next Presidential election in September this year should be an open election as there have been only 4 elected Presidents since the Elected Presidency scheme came into effect, with Mr Ong Teng Cheong being our first elected President. We do not know of any ordinary Singaporean who has taken an opposing view.

    Since the PAP Government insists that the upcoming Presidential election is a reserved election under the Presidential Elections (Amendment) Act 2017, the burden was on them to explain to the Singapore people the basis of their decision. It was incumbent upon them to produce the advice which they said they had obtained from the Attorney-General, which formed the basis of their decision. This is no different to a judge having to give his reasons for a decision made by him. It was important for the Government to have made known the reasoning behind the Attorney-General’s advice because the Attorney-General’s advice does not constitute the law of the land and is open to challenge by way of Judicial Review.
    Finally, we note from Dr Tan Cheng Bock’s statement issued after he had filed the proceedings in Court that Lord Pannick QC, the most renown British Constitutional lawyer of his generation, whom Dr Tan consulted, is of the opinion that section 22 of the Presidential Elections (Amendment) Act 2017, which makes the upcoming Presidential election a reserved one, is unconstitutional . That means that in Lord Pannick QC’s opinion, the advice of the Attorney-General was wrong. We must now await the determination of this issue by the Supreme Court.

    11th May 2017
    Lim Tean, Goh Meng Seng, Syafarin Sarif, Tan Kin Lian. Dolly Peh, Firros Rajah, Steven Goh, Brad Bowyer, William Wallace, Robert Teh, Jafri Basron, Sukhdev Singh Gill, Michael Dorai, Singaram Padmanathan, Mohammad Saqib, Hong Ht, Sohibo Netads, Kelvin Law Chee Ming, Leslie Terh, C Sing Ow, Kenneth Chan, Simon Lim, Abdul Salim Harun, Soonkin Chew, Roy Boey, Ng Fark Yew, Kelvin Ong, Bernard Riio, Derek Tan, Danny Ng, Raymond CH Chan, Keith Ong, Lee Anthony, Anne Lim, Andrew Wong, David Koh, Niki Ng, Yeu Yong Teo, Stanley Goh, Ricky Lim, Richard Sim, Michael Wong K E, Sarah Lim, RockinAngels Patrick, Gloria Siew, Tan Seng Hoo, Mani Maran, Robert Teo, Simon Chong, Sue Ryan, Goh Chok Chai Ricky, Low SK, Ravi Velu, Kelvin Cheong, Wong Sunny, Alvina Khoo, Liao Bo Tan, Wong YY, AK Tan, Sandra Goh, David Wee, Ashura Chia, Alan Anthony, Issaro Poh, Hmy Shaharudin, Gillian Chan, Cheyenne Cherokee Sioux, Raymond Tham, Sajeev Kamalasanan, Johan Teh, Abdul Kadir Md Noor, Henry Tan, Christopher Chin, Andre l,Chia, Ronald Koh, Gilbert Louis, Robert Guo, Oh Bock Thin, Simon Loke, still updating….

     

    Source: Goh Meng Seng

  • High Court Accepts Application By Dr Tan Cheng Bock On Constitutionality Of Counting Late Wee Kim Wee As First EP

    High Court Accepts Application By Dr Tan Cheng Bock On Constitutionality Of Counting Late Wee Kim Wee As First EP

    COURT APPLICATION ACCEPTED

    I would like to announce that this morning, the High Court accepted my application (HC/OS 495/2017), which seeks the Court’s determination on whether a piece of legislation (section 22 Presidential Elections (Amendment) Act 6 of 2017 which counted President Wee Kim Wee as the first Elected Presidency term for the purposes of calling a Reserved Election), is consistent with our Constitution (Articles 19B(1) and 164(1) which introduced the mechanism of a Reserved Election into our Constitution).

    I am the Plaintiff and for the purposes of serving Court papers on the Government, the Defendant is the Attorney General.

    The application was filed on 5 May 2017. The Court accepted my application this morning, and has fixed a pre-trial conference on 22 May 2017.

    To recap, on 31 March 2017, I held a press conference explaining why in my layman’s opinion, starting the count from President Wee’s term appeared to be inconsistent with the spirit and purpose for reserved elections. I then invited the Government or AG to explain the legal reasons for their count.

    On 1 April 2017 the Government through MCI said I raised no new points that require a response. I responded to say the MCI missed my point. Nothing further was heard on this issue.

    Since this is a matter of national importance, I sought to find the legal answer and consulted the best constitutional lawyer I could find. He is Queen’s Counsel Lord David Pannick. I gave Lord Pannick the Commission Report, White Paper, all relevant Hansard parliamentary reports from 7 Nov 2016 to 6 February 2017, our Constitution and all related statutes on this issue. I asked him one question: whether the AG correctly advised the Government to specify President Wee’s term as the first to be counted on the basis that he was the first President to exercise elected powers.

    Lord Pannick has advised that he disagrees with the AG’s advice, and that section 22 Presidential Elections (Amendment) Act 6 of 2017 as it stands is unconstitutional. After receiving Lord Pannick’s reply, I felt I could not keep his legal opinion to myself. It would be in public interest to have the Court decide which legal view is correct – Lord Pannick or the AG.

    On 28 April 2017, I engaged M/s Tan, Rajah & Cheah to make the necessary application, and to produce in my affidavit Lord Pannick’s written opinion before the Court. I believe this question can be answered without confrontation or hostility. Both the Government and I have the nation’s best interest at heart. It is in nobody’s interest to have a Reserved Election that is unconstitutional.

    I am satisfied that I have, to the best of my ability and capacity, done my part to do what is right in the circumstances, which is to bring to this Court’s attention Lord Pannick’s opinion. Since the matter is now before the Court, it is only right that I refrain from making any further public comment until this case is decided.

     

    Source: Dr Tan Cheng Bock

  • Damanhuri Abas: The Malay Reserved President Is A Done Deal

    Damanhuri Abas: The Malay Reserved President Is A Done Deal

    The Malay Reserved President is a done deal no matter how much Dr Tan Cheng Bock try to argue for an Open Election. He will be admired for his tenacity and resolve to truly serve the people he love. So what can Singaporean hope for after Dr Tan Cheng Bock?

    Looking at the rank and file in Government, they are still mostly dominated by career civil servants from the uniformed or non-uniformed services. This reality undermines the Government’s claim that pegging Ministers salary to that of top private sector senior management will lead to more coming forward to join politics and becoming Ministers.

    In fact since the Government calibrated the salary of Ministers to be on par to that of private sector senior management, we have not seen any ground-breaking move that is worth mentioning. The truth is, if one has attained senior management position in business it is most unlikely that a political career is anywhere in his or her radar. Instead it is those who don’t see financial prospect in the private sector that will grab a chance of making big bucks as politician. It is definitely rare and extremely far between to expect anyone who is earning a handsome annual pay comfortably in the private sector to be so driven by a calling to serve the people.

    Singaporean yearns for that truly fresh face to rejuvenate their hopes and dreams amidst the gloom of a Machiavellian driven politically sterile landscape dominated by the powerful elite and their avarice. For now, such a one is imperceptible in both the near and far vista of our political horizon.

     

    Rilek1Corner

    Source: Damanhuri Bin Abas

  • Dr Tan Cheng Bock: 2017 Should Be Open Presidential Election

    Dr Tan Cheng Bock: 2017 Should Be Open Presidential Election

    (Dr Tan Cheng Bock’s Press Conference on 31st March 2017)

    1. Thank you everyone for making the time to attend this Press conference.

    2. I call this press conference to ask the government whether it is correct to make the 2017 Presidential Election a reserved election. I think it should be an open election.

    3. For those new to Singapore politics, our Constitution was recently changed. We now have a new Article 19B(1). This reserves an election for a racial group if no one from that community has been President for the 5 most recent Presidential terms.

    4. The purpose for reserved election was explained in the Constitutional Commission’s report dated 17 August 2016. They said that a reserved election for a minority group should only be invoked if VOTERS do not CHOOSE someone from that minority group as President after 5 consecutive presidential terms produced by free and unregulated elections.

    5. Let’s look at what the Constitutional Commission Report originally said (Constitutional Commission Report dated 17 August 2016):

    “5.36 … if free and unregulated elections produce Presidents from a varied distribution of ethnicities, the requirement of a reserved election will never be triggered.

    5.40 … This may be illustrated in the following scenario: An election is reserved for racial group A because no candidate from racial group A has been ELECTED for 5 consecutive terms”.

    6. The “free and unregulated” elections mentioned by the Commission, is what many people call “open elections”. It is not closed to a specific group of candidates. It is a presidential election where candidates of all races can stand, and voters can elect a President who is Chinese, Malay, Indian or any other race.

    7. The Government said the Attorney General’s Chambers (AGC) advised the Prime Minister that 2017 will be our 1st reserved election. This is based on AGC counting 5 consecutive presidential terms beginning with President Wee Kim Wee.

    8. I question whether AGC’s method of counting is actually in line with the spirit and purpose put forward by the Constitutional Commission for having a reserved election.

    9. The AGC included a nominated President in their count. But the Commission’s emphasis was on open elections, where voters fail to vote in a minority president.

    a. Let me read for you what the Commission said again:

    “5.36 … if free and unregulated elections produce Presidents from a varied distribution of ethnicities, the requirement of a reserved election will never be triggered.

    5.40 … This may be illustrated in the following scenario: An election is reserved for racial group A because no candidate from racial group A has been ELECTED for 5 consecutive terms”.

    b. The Government White Paper published on 15 Sept 2016 accepted this position. At paragraph 81 and 82, they explain,

    “81(b) … A reserved election will never arise if free and unregulated elections produce Presidents of varied ethnicities. It will only be invoked if there has not been a President of a given ethnicity for an “exceedingly long period.

    82 The Govt agrees with the approach proposed by the Commission.”

    c. On 7 Nov 2016 in Parliament, DPM Teo Chee Hean at the 2nd reading of the Constitutional Amendment Bill repeated that a reserve election will only come into play if OPEN ELECTIONS fail to return a President from the different races. I quote at paragraph 107(b) of his speech “..it will only come into play if open elections fail to periodically return Presidents from the different races”.

    d. So, open elections is the trigger for reserved elections.

    e. DPM Teo then introduced the new Article 19B of our Constitution at paragraph 109 of his speech by saying that “Elections will generally be open to candidates from all races.” “However, if a particular racial group has not held the Presidency for the most recent 5 consecutive terms, Article 19B(1) reserves the next election for that group.”

    f. Reading DPM Teo’s statements, which adopted the Commission’s report and the White Paper, it is obvious that 5 open elections must first take place before there is a reserved election.

    g. So his reference to “the most recent 5 consecutive terms” to be counted must therefore mean “the most recent 5 consecutive terms PRODUCED BY OPEN ELECTIONS”.

    h. However one day later, on 8 Nov 2016, PM Lee told Parliament that AGC had advised the Government to count 5 consecutive terms of presidents who exercised elected powers. So AGC counted from Dr Wee Kim Wee 5 Presidents with elected powers. PM Lee said:

    “We have taken the Attorney General’s advice. We will start counting from the first President who exercised the powers of the Elected President. That means we are now in the fifth term of the elected Presidency.“

    i. The counting is clearly different from what the Commission said previously. If you recall, the Commission said that “An election is reserved for racial group A because no candidate from racial group A has been elected for 5 consecutive terms”. The Commission’s emphasis was on open elections and not Presidents who exercised elected powers.

    j. So AGC’s trigger and the Commission’s trigger for reserved elections are different.

    10. Unfortunately, there was no debate on whether AGC advised the Government correctly. The Government also declined the opportunity to explain this in Parliament. As a result of AGC’s advice, 2017 became a reserved election year.

    11. So we need to know why the AGC did not advise the PM to count 5 “open elections” in line with the spirit and purpose of the Commission? And why did the AGC also advise the PM that Singapore is now in the fifth term of the Elected Presidency when only 4 presidents have been returned by open elections?

    12. History shows that Singapore has only invoked 4 open presidential elections. The Prime Minister only issued 4 writs of Presidential Elections: in 1993, 1999, 2005 and 2011.

    13. Our 1st open election produced President Ong Teng Cheong. President Nathan returned unopposed in the 2nd and 3rd open elections. The 4th open election produced President Tony Tan. Following the Commission’s recommendations as accepted by the Government, 2017 should be an open election.

    14. President Wee never stood for election. He was a President nominated by Government. He only exercised the powers of an elected president for less than ½ a term. Those powers were given to him by Parliament as a transitional provision. But his term was never an Elected Presidency. That is the view of a respected constitutional law professor in Singapore. He said: “Although he exercised all the discretionary powers of an elected president, the first truly elected President was Ong Teng Cheong.” (https://singaporepubliclaw.com/2016/08/25/elected-president/)

    15. In all my 26 years in Parliament we had always referred to Mr Ong Teng Cheong as the first elected President. Our Presidents past and present, and Ministers and MPs in Parliament have ALL referred to President Ong Teng Cheong directly or indirectly as Singapore’s first elected president and the 1st elected presidency. Even the Constitutional Commission’s Report contains a statement calling President Ong Teng Cheong the first elected president. That is also the view of most, if not all, Singaporeans I’ve spoken to.

    16. To summarise, I have put forward the reasons why I think 2017 should be an open election year. I think my understanding is consistent with the Commission’s spirit and purpose for introducing reserved elections. The AGC should have counted the 5 most recent presidential terms produced by open elections. This starts with President Ong Teng Cheong.

    17. I now invite the Government or the AGC to explain why they counted the presidential terms of presidents who exercised elected powers. If need be, the Government can refer AGC’s opinion to Court for independent judicial verification. After all, the Courts have the final say on legal issues in Singapore. And a recent high profile Court of Appeal case has shown that the AGC is not always correct in their legal opinion.

    18. If the Government double-checks the AGC’s advice with the Court, then Parliament and the people of Singapore can be satisfied beyond doubt that the constitutional changes they are making stand on strong legal foundations.

    19. But if the Government simply accepts AGC’s advice without explaining why they accepted the accuracy of the opinion, I am concerned that our Elected Presidency will always be tainted with the suspicion that the reserved elections of 2017, was introduced to prevent my candidacy.

    20. How we do things is as important as what we do.

    21. On this note, I would urge the Government to explain, or refer AGC’s opinion to Court to confirm whether AGC’s advice is in sync with the Commission’s spirit and purpose for having reserved elections.

     

    Source: Dr Tan Cheng Bock