• 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.

PTADER - Come Out

wwabbit

Alfrescian (Inf)
Asset
I don't see the issue with Article 134 1(a). If you read it in context with the 22 years thing, then it becomes quite clear.
The Constitution gives the government the right to revoke citizenship of dual citizens over the age of 18, but government policy seems to be to apply it only to dual citizens over the age of 22. This means they have discretion and they are applying discretion.

Now the question is if the government has been applying this discretion to exempt certain individuals. It's certainly possible, but you also have to bear in mind that cases of dual citizenship over the age of 22 may not necessarily be exemption cases, because the government can only revoke a dual citizenship if they know about it. How hard is it to hide dual citizenship if you become naturalized in another country after the age of 22?
 
Last edited:

eatshitndie

Alfrescian (Inf)
Asset
This means they have discretion and they are applying discretion.

in sg's constitutional context, it's quite a joke really. they craft the language, and the presence or absence of it, to allow those in power to have the flexibility or "discretion" to apply multiple rules and goal posts depending on who you are. for example, immigration and customs officers are given discretionary and enforcement powers beyond their cranal and legal capacity to interpret the law, in which there are many shades of grey. and so in effect, there's no point arguing about constitutionality as the final arbiter is the regime itself. they may let someone hold dual citizenship, and they may revoke sg citizenship on another, just like they may impose ns on one while waiving ns liabilities on another. it is futile challenging their decisions based on constitutionality and letter of the law in an sg court as their judiciary and judges can bend the laws of physics at will. :p :biggrin: :eek:
 

kukubird58

Alfrescian
Loyal
hahaha....in this case, the position of the government is clear......Singapore does not allow dual citizenship
Proof: report titled "Home in Singapore, heart in homeland"; Monday, 4 Feb 2013
 

kukubird58

Alfrescian
Loyal
hahaha....bump for the thread....
see how slimey idiots can still twist and turn even when confronted with irrefutable proofs.....lol.
 

SgParent

Alfrescian
Loyal
Even WP Low Thia Khiang said so....

"I think we have a competent Government... we need to allow time for the Government to work, and I hope, eventually, the policies will take effect on the ground, people's lives will be improved and we have a better Singapore." Low Thia Khiang in "By-election win not sign of trend for GE: Low", 147th Prostitute Press 28 January 2013

WP Chauvinists and race bigots, please note and please be patient. Things will improve under the PAP.

nothing wrong to place the white scums on the wrong footing, wrong sense of security. the consistent kicking out white scum after white scum is proof enough that ah low is actually trying to act harmless while bidding his time

if the white scums are as naive or pretend to be as you, then good for the true pink singaporeans
 
Top