Shanmugam, the wisdom and the wise dam

[kepala butoh]

Is this man saying the President is a puppet ruler who can't comment unless he or she gets the go-ahead? If so, why bother having elections? Is this a vieled warning that a non-Party man will not be allowed to be vocal?

Aug 6, 2011
Elections do not change president's powers
By Tessa Wong

Law Minister K Shanmugam said on Friday that the process of direct elections does not change the scope of the Elected President's powers as set out in the Constitution. -- ST PHOTO: LIM SIN THAI

LAW Minister K Shanmugam said on Friday that the process of direct elections does not change the scope of the Elected President's powers as set out in the Constitution.

And the Constitution states that the President can speak on issues only as authorised by the Cabinet, he said at a Institute of Policy Studies forum.

"If a head of state challenges the Government, he will be acting unconstitutionally," Mr Shanmugam added.

The 1991 amendment to the Constitution, which made the presidency an elected position, gave the president veto powers in five areas, including the spending of past reserves.

He was speaking at an Institute of Policy Studies forum on the role of the roles, responsibilities and power of the elected president. Ambassador-at-large Professor Tommy Koh and constitutional expert Professor Thio Li-Ann also spoke at the forum, which was held at Orchard Hotel.

 

[Confuseous]

It is not a veiled threat - just stating a constitutional element.

So, why are we paying $4million for a watchdog who is not allowed to bark?

On the other hand, now we understand why Prataman said he was still considering - I mean, wtf, for $4 million a year, choh boh lan and then say "I have tried my best (to speak) but the constitution say cannot leh."

KNN