President has no discretion in clemency appeal

[lianbeng]

Historically of Singapore presidents, I think only Benjamin Sheares and Ong Teng Cheong dared to question or disagree with the government.

ong teng cheong had wanted to dip into our national reserves to help our people tide over the financial crisis but kana arm-twisted lor.
now u know who is in-charge?

 

[Brightkid]

Actually,the cho-bo-lan president is only a janitor (jaga) for the Istana building.

Yalor. For a fraction of his salary, with absolutely no KPI and guaranteed salary for 5 years, no one will mind even be a GD (General Purpose) man there.

Can. Look at Canada, Australia, NZ etc. They don't have a president. They just retain the Queen in name as their head of state after independence from Britain. The cost? Maintain a palatial villa for occasional royal family visits and the Queen sends a Lieutenant-Governor to represent her, since she can't be everywhere. The British Empire may be no longer empire-sized she's still head of state of more than 10 countries.

But it's politically difficult for Singapore to do that. The majority non-British descent non-white population here is unlikely to accept that. The Queen and the British may not want to do that. For if later Singapore got invaded again, everybody blames the British again.

Somewhat agree with your statements.

However, those Kings/Queens are descended from the many generations before and probably can be traced to some significant events that placed them there.

In Singapore's case, it was almost an appointed individual by some parties, even though vetted by a Presidential Council.

Any challenger to that position who is not 'appproved', will have his/her credential totally exposed. Remember the last case of an CFO challenger?

remember what wee kim wee said before he died of cancer?
"take away my title i'm just an ordinary citizen."
u think all these people like to be presidents?
all kana forced to sign on the dotted line one mah.

Maybe for the previous few Presidents such as WKW and OTC may not want to be President if they do not have to, the current one seemed to be enjoying himself to extend to his current 2nd term.

 

[lianbeng]

Maybe for the previous few Presidents such as WKW and OTC may not want to be President if they do not have to, the current one seemed to be enjoying himself to extend to his current 2nd term.

ofcoz sure enjoy lah!
just sit in opid eat prata n nasi briyani everyday.
wave hands at people n sign some documents plus his chop.
can go to prataland to build his dream kingdom there.
why not?

 

[lianbeng]

noticed all our past presidents died of cancers?
benjamin sheares kana brain tumour.
wee kim wee kana nose cancer.
ong teng cheong kana lymphoma.
wonder what our prataman will kana?

 

[Ramseth]

ong teng cheong had wanted to dip into our national reserves to help our people tide over the financial crisis but kana arm-twisted lor.
now u know who is in-charge?

President : Economy is bad, people are suffering. How much reserves we have there to help?

PM : Reserves are not for helping people. Reserves are for helping ourselves because our salary bills are very high, and for helping cover our risky investments.

President : We can't be helping ourselves and yet not helping people.

PM : We're hardworking and deserve the money. If you help people, they become lazy and stop working.

President : Why then are we making risky investments?

PM : No pain no gain, high risk high reward.

President : Be that as it may, surely there must be enough to spare to help people. How much is there exactly?

PM : It'd take quite sometime to tally up the figures.

President : How long? Can I have the figures by next week?

PM : Well, perhaps by next millennium, many manhours, you know.

 

[ah_phah]

in sinkieland, president is as good as puppet. no constitutional powers. everything & anything, the cabinet excercises the powers on his behalf.

in short, holding the post & being paid to be president is not a job... its called salaried retirement.

 

[lianbeng]

President : Economy is bad, people are suffering. How much reserves we have there to help?

PM : Reserves are not for helping people. Reserves are for helping ourselves because our salary bills are very high, and for helping cover our risky investments.

President : We can't be helping ourselves and yet not helping people.

PM : We're hardworking and deserve the money. If you help people, they become lazy and stop working.

President : Why then are we making risky investments?

PM : No pain no gain, high risk high reward.

President : Be that as it may, surely there must be enough to spare to help people. How much is there exactly?

PM : It'd take quite sometime to tally up the figures.

President : How long? Can I have the figures by next week?

PM : Well, perhaps by next millennium, many manhours, you know.

ong teng cheong left the world with an unresolved issue u know?
he left without being able to lift a finger to help our very own poor people.
he left in deep regrets!
yet those people were celebrating when he breathed his last breath lifting up their middle fingers at his funeral wake.:oIo:
~sigh~ sad!:(

 

[Queen Seok Duk]

You mean that judge? Nothing to do with police also.

People must understand the principle of separation of powers, executive, legislative and judiciary. Police is an enforcement arm for the executive only. What laws to make, what verdicts to pass, legislative (Parliament) and judiciary (Court) matters.

I mean YOU, Mr Know-it-All of Sammyboy forum. Before the "verdict" was pronounced by Stevie Jong, did you mention what you've now made out to be the "obvious" anywhere in this forum before?

This matter had been fermenting for quite some time, and now after Stevie Jong has spoken you seem to offer everyone of us the impression that you "knew the law" even before the pronouncement was made. You knew the law better than many lawyers, including M[ental] Ravi, who apparently were "caught off guard" by Stevie Jong's decision.

 

[halsey02]

noticed all our past presidents died of cancers?
benjamin sheares kana brain tumour.
wee kim wee kana nose cancer.
ong teng cheong kana lymphoma.
wonder what our prataman will kana?

Cancer of the rear orifice

 

[uncleyap]

Of course the President doesn't have discretion on clemency. Even the Queen of England doesn't have. They act on advice from their Cabinets. Their Cabinets exercise the powers in the Queen's or President's name.

If the President or Monarch has such discretionary powers withoout reference to elected Parliament and Cabinet, then the country regresses to absolute monarchy where head of state can do anything at pleasure.

I don't quite agree with that because an ELECTED PRESIDENT whose office is subjected to direct votes of people is a very different nature from that of an heredity monarchy.

The principal is that the people are now exercising their votes and mandate in more than one ways, 1 to vote the parliamentary election another to vote the elected president. So the people then assigned power via votes to not a single but 2 different state entities being the cabinet & the president, the purpose then is to have these 2 separate entities act for the peoples' interest independently, in the concept of check & balance.

It is not for elected president to be a robot controlled by cabinet, just like the hereditary heads of states. The principal here is power is from the people, the ELECTED entity holds the assigned power.

Before the ELECTED PRESIDENCY e.g. President Yousoff Isak era, president was appointed by cabinet or parliament instead of being elected directly by people. Thus he won't have the same power.

If the high court now ruled this way, it reflected a very serious flaw in system. That constitutional clause 22P should be considered as outdated that it is not inline with the later Presidential Elections Act Cap 240A. The functional purpose of electing a president in order to check against the cabinet is quite defeated if Singaporeans elected a president to only again become a robot controlled by cabinet.

Why then pay this robot millions of dollar to do nothing much, this is another big question.

On the other hand, the judgment's interpretation of the cabinets' ADVISE to president to be the same meaning as that to a polite form or ORDER, that is disagreeable. ADVISE is something that one MAY or MAY NOT adopt. An advise is not an order. An ADVISE does not kill the president's independent power of decision, because especially he is elected. This judgment seems to rule against the elected president's rightful power to make independent decision when his own opinion is different from that of the cabinet's. This is dangerous.

 

[Ramseth]

I mean YOU, Mr Know-it-All of Sammyboy forum. Before the "verdict" was pronounced by Stevie Jong, did you mention what you've now made out to be the "obvious" anywhere in this forum before?

This matter had been fermenting for quite some time, and now after Stevie Jong has spoken you seem to offer everyone of us the impression that you "knew the law" even before the pronouncement was made. You knew the law better than many lawyers, including M[ental] Ravi, who apparently were "caught off guard" by Stevie Jong's decision.

Even if you meant me, it's alright. It's still police is police, judiciary is judiciary. The law is the law, even if repeated ad nauseum, still the law. Lawyers don't uphold the law. They defend their clients' interests within the law. Parliament makes the law, police uphold the law, then leave it up to the lawyers and judges to sort out the verdicts.

 

[Ramseth]

I don't quite agree with that because an ELECTED PRESIDENT whose office is subjected to direct votes of people is a very different nature from that of an heredity monarchy.

With due respect, the current president isn't elected by the people. He's selected and approved by a committee of three "wise" men appointed by and beholden to PMO.

 

[Queen Seok Duk]

Even if you meant me, it's alright. It's still police is police, judiciary is judiciary. The law is the law, even if repeated ad nauseum, still the law. Lawyers don't uphold the law. They defend their clients' interests within the law. Parliament makes the law, police uphold the law, then leave it up to the lawyers and judges to sort out the verdicts.

The ox head is not in line with the horse's mouth.

I don't need an unsolicited lesson on separation of powers, just so that you can regurgitate what you know.

Just answer to the point. You seem to give the impression that you knew all along that the President does NOT have the discretion.

Did you even mention your 'pre-verdict' knowledge anywhere in this forum before Stevie Jong pronounced his decision ?

 

[uncleyap]

With due respect, the current president isn't elected by the people. He's selected and approved by a committee of three "wise" men appointed by and beholden to PMO.

One flaw in the system should not be compromise by worsening yet another flaw in the same system, you see? Sad country..:(

I am pointing out what the right thing should had been, and how our state mechanism should had been functioning.

What you are pointing out are the make-shift modifications and crooked manipulations to the system by famiLEE LEEgime.

 

[Queen Seok Duk]

On the other hand, the judgment's interpretation of the cabinets' ADVISE to president to be the same meaning as that to a polite form or ORDER, that is disagreeable. ADVISE is something that one MAY or MAY NOT adopt. An advise is not an order. An ADVISE does not kill the president's independent power of decision, because especially he is elected. This judgment seems to rule against the elected president's rightful power to make independent decision when his own opinion is different from that of the cabinet's. This is dangerous.
[/B][/COLOR]

Uncle, the keyword is not 'advice' but 'may'. If Parliament intended that the President must act on the advice of the cabinet, the appropriate term should be "shall", i.e. the President shall, on the advice of the Cabinet.

The word "may" carries the implication that the President "may not", and on this count you're correct.

Then again, it's selected reading of just one sentence. If you read the entire section, including s.21, I agree with the ruling.

 

[Ramseth]

I don't need an unsolicited lesson on separation of powers, just so that you can regurgitate what you know.

Just answer to the point. You seem to give the impression that you knew all along that the President does NOT have the discretion.

Did you even mention your 'pre-verdict' knowledge anywhere in this forum before Stevie Jong pronounced his decision ?

And I'm not soliciting for sales. I know all I know and regurgitate over and over, that's my problem. It's meant for people who don't know it or haven't read it before. You want to read to it over and over even after knowing it, I don't know what's your problem.

 

[Queen Seok Duk]

And I'm not soliciting for sales. I know all I know and regurgitate over and over, that's my problem. It's meant for people who don't know it or haven't read it before. You want to read to it over and over even after knowing it, I don't know what's your problem.

Okay. I repeat my question.

Before the ruling was handed down by the judge, did you at any time before in this forum offer your interpretation of this part of the law ?

Or are you just a Horse Back Cannon ?

 

[uncleyap]

Uncle, the keyword is not 'advice' but 'may'. If Parliament intended that the President must act on the advice of the cabinet, the appropriate term should be "shall", i.e. the President shall, on the advice of the Cabinet.

The word "may" carries the implication that the President "may not", and on this count you're correct.

You are right about that too.



The legislation don't seem to be binding the president to comply with the cabinet. Why the judge came out with this kind of judgment?

Looking away from the legislation, we should begin with a higher view in the 1st place, via the principal of powers, and how things should be put to work in this country. And we must spot any fault in the legislation where they exist, instead of blindly following them.

In court I had spotted that LEFT BANK of Singapore River is silly, that legislation had changed afterward. I also spotted that Old Parliament Lane does not reach the WEST BANK of Singapore River after that change. A lawyer had earlier discovered before me, that Parliament Lane does not exist, and should had been Old Parliament Lane. They also changed that.

The parliament moved around end 1999 / early 2000, the Presidential Election Act came in year??? Why the online statue is blank in the area where they should provide the legislation history??

http://statutes.agc.gov.sg/non_vers...L ELECTIONS ACT &date=latest&method=part&sl=1

I can tell that the old mindset from before the Elected President era still stay in the minds of judges and cabinet members & even AGC officers. Much in same nature as they had still used outdated street name within legislation up to 9 YRS OUTDATED. Imagine?

 

[Ramseth]

Okay. I repeat my question.

Before the ruling was handed down by the judge, did you at any time before in this forum offer your interpretation of this part of the law ?

Or are you just a Horse Back Cannon ?

Specifically in this case, no. Do I have to? Do I owe this forum a pre-call second guess in any court case? I think not. However, all along generally, my opinion on the separation of powers has always been clear. Anyway, what's wrong with reviewing and passing retrospective opinions?

I'm not here to win accolades. I'd rather go IPPT for monetary award if they still allow me to. Just to share opinions when I'm free to do so. Nobody's expected to agree with me all the time too.

 

[Brightkid]

Hmmmm.....all these while my understanding, at least I thought why the Elected PResident concept is for, is that the Elected (or appointed) President is to hold the other key to the country;s reserve so that if the cabinet, formed by uncrupulous people, attempt to mis-use it, the Elected President can veto or override Parliament's decision.

Seemed like it is not meant to be and the current President is just the keeper of the second key to keep it warm for Parliament just in case they need it and someone to second that decision.

Then again, how to safe-guard something that he do not even knows about ?

Sorry for the digress from main topic. It just all came together.