Therefore you should Vote Opposition Until PAP Becomes The Opposition Again.
-
IP addresses are NOT logged in this forum so there's no point asking. Please note that this forum is full of homophobes, racists, lunatics, schizophrenics & absolute nut jobs with a smattering of geniuses, Chinese chauvinists, Moderate Muslims and last but not least a couple of "know-it-alls" constantly sprouting their dubious wisdom. If you believe that content generated by unsavory characters might cause you offense PLEASE LEAVE NOW! Sammyboy Admin and Staff are not responsible for your hurt feelings should you choose to read any of the content here. The OTHER forum is HERE so please stop asking.
Serious Tan Cheng Bock files affidavit to ask AGC to explain Elected President count
- Thread starter Patriot
- Start date
Therefore you should Vote Opposition Until PAP Becomes The Opposition Again.
TCB die die wants to be Prez....
Be careful what he wish for.... wait they poison him like ah Ong until tio cancer
Be careful what he wish for.... wait they poison him like ah Ong until tio cancer
TCB may end up in exile, with a new reputation for being a drunk, womanizer and wife beater.
We all know AGC's forthcoming reply, don't we?
End of the day, PAP 1, TCB 0.
End of the day, PAP 1, TCB 0.
He is too old for the latter two.
He wants to die as a President.
From Tan Cheng Bock's FB on 8th May 2017:
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.
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.
Scroobal,
Just claim Executive privilege..or Executive priorities...
Old Man had always run the country from dictat...the General Election is just a necessary inconvenience to keep up a facade of parliamentary democracy.
If he was still alive, he might worm his way out of it..or create another law to beat it. But not his son.
Just claim Executive privilege..or Executive priorities...
Old Man had always run the country from dictat...the General Election is just a necessary inconvenience to keep up a facade of parliamentary democracy.
If he was still alive, he might worm his way out of it..or create another law to beat it. But not his son.
Last edited:
Agree. Clearly the son does not know how to to do this air-tight. I am keen to see how this progresses once the court rules. The Polling station affair was determined by the AG and it never went to court. The constitution allows the AG not to prosecute and there is no recourse.
Why do you refer to Lee Kuan Yew as Old Man? You don't dare to type out his name?
Can the Sultan of Johor be appointed as President of Singapore?
I remember there were times when the idea of Singapore rejoining Malaysia was mooted unofficially......
I remember there were times when the idea of Singapore rejoining Malaysia was mooted unofficially......
learn to love the ones you are with. Go with the flow. Be fatalistic. Make do with what you have. Be contented.
agree absolutely, it was a case of giving a man enough rope and tcb scored a hole-in-one here.
the agc cannot claim exec privy now as the world is watching, esp after the horse has bolted :o
They already explained it. Wee Kim Wee was performing the duties of an elected president. So although he was not elected he is still considered an elected president.
An Elected President is not determined by whether he is elected or not but by his job duties and role.
They can also add that during that time besides Wee Kim Wee there were no other suitable candidates. So having an election would not have changed the end result.
sinkies will as usual just learn to love the ones you are with. Go with the flow. Be fatalistic. Make do with what you have. Be contented.
An Elected President is not determined by whether he is elected or not but by his job duties and role.
They can also add that during that time besides Wee Kim Wee there were no other suitable candidates. So having an election would not have changed the end result.
sinkies will as usual just learn to love the ones you are with. Go with the flow. Be fatalistic. Make do with what you have. Be contented.
i don't think there can be a happy-ending to this saga
it's a tad presumptive that acting in the capacity of a elected president is construed as being one - analogy of a "t" versus an "s" rank as there was no confirmation nor mandate. it also begs the question as to the absence of a suitable candidate as being the "chosen" one - if they had looked far and wide enough. and having an election would also not guarantee that the end justified the means...
i don't think there can be a happy-ending to this saga
it's a tad presumptive that acting in the capacity of a elected president is construed as being one - analogy of a "t" versus an "s" rank as there was no confirmation nor mandate. it also begs the question as to the absence of a suitable candidate as being the "chosen" one - if they had looked far and wide enough. and having an election would also not guarantee that the end justified the means...
Well if you see how sinkies accepted the ruling that if you inside the polling centre then you are not within "x" km of the polling centre.
it doesn't matter. All it needs is some semblance of a decision and it will be accepted.
same as in a wedding - speak now or forever hold thy tongue :(
Similar threads
