http://uncleyap-news.blogspot.com/2010/03/tak-boleh-tahan-virdict-date-changed-to.html
<!-- Begin #content --> <!-- Begin #main --> Tuesday, March 09, 2010
<!-- Begin .post --> Tak Boleh Tahan virdict date changed to 11.Mar.2010
Related Blog Post URL
<style type="text/css"> <!-- @page { margin: 0.79in } P { margin-bottom: 0.08in } --> </style> Part 1. Main Submissions
Main Point #1
There is nothing more important than this first point of my submission. That is the legislators had by amendments on the relevant schedule S585/2008 on 12.Nov.2008 indicating 2 points of corrections which is originated from the legislators. Namely, the boundary definition by
(a) Old Parliament Lane &
(b) East Bank of Singapore River.
This is the result of submissions by defense in this case at the beginning stage of this trial.
These corrections is the acknowledgments by the Legislators, of their mistakes made within the relevant legislations, which all the charges in this case are based on.
This is NOT a redefinition of area nor an update to reflect latest names of these places, because Singapore River had not been changed and Parliament Lane had been changed for already 10 years, and instead this had been mistake made since 2002, that these legislative errors had been made since the very beginning of these legislation.
The necessity of these corrections from the legislators has the most important binding effects for courts of Singapore to consider the erroneous legislation as ineffective, for their intended purposes. The courts does not have the function to make corrected reading of legislation, it is the part of legislators to correct them.
When legislators had failed their purposes of legislation, it should not be the function of courts to substitute the roles of legislators, to impose any corrections or by reading the legislations other than literally. For example, if the legislation error was one of wrongly specifying maximum penalty from 10 stroke of cane to 1 stroke instead, then courts should not impose 5 strokes which is in excess of the standing legislations, and sentences made in violation of erroneous legislation should also be deem as invalid or null & void.
Citizens have no obligation of upholding ineffective legislations nor complying with invalid sentences. Although the intention of the erroneous legislation could be understood.
For the purpose of completeness, I must also highlight that the corrected and currently standing legislation still has yet another mistake, which I had pointed out in the trial, which is the fact that Old Parliament Lane does not have any junction with East Bank of Singapore River. The stretch of Promenade in between Empress Place Building (Asian Civilization Museum) & Old Parliament is still missing from the legislation, and should be inserted into the legislation for the definition of area to be meaningful and comprehensible.
As charges are made out of erroneous legislations, they similarly lack the effectiveness in law, and I plea with the court to have the charges dismissed, as this is the most appropriate resolution with this reason after years of trial. CPC allows judge to dismiss case at any stage.
<!-- Begin #content --> <!-- Begin #main --> Tuesday, March 09, 2010
<!-- Begin .post --> Tak Boleh Tahan virdict date changed to 11.Mar.2010
Related Blog Post URL
<style type="text/css"> <!-- @page { margin: 0.79in } P { margin-bottom: 0.08in } --> </style> Part 1. Main Submissions
Main Point #1
There is nothing more important than this first point of my submission. That is the legislators had by amendments on the relevant schedule S585/2008 on 12.Nov.2008 indicating 2 points of corrections which is originated from the legislators. Namely, the boundary definition by
(a) Old Parliament Lane &
(b) East Bank of Singapore River.
This is the result of submissions by defense in this case at the beginning stage of this trial.
These corrections is the acknowledgments by the Legislators, of their mistakes made within the relevant legislations, which all the charges in this case are based on.
This is NOT a redefinition of area nor an update to reflect latest names of these places, because Singapore River had not been changed and Parliament Lane had been changed for already 10 years, and instead this had been mistake made since 2002, that these legislative errors had been made since the very beginning of these legislation.
The necessity of these corrections from the legislators has the most important binding effects for courts of Singapore to consider the erroneous legislation as ineffective, for their intended purposes. The courts does not have the function to make corrected reading of legislation, it is the part of legislators to correct them.
When legislators had failed their purposes of legislation, it should not be the function of courts to substitute the roles of legislators, to impose any corrections or by reading the legislations other than literally. For example, if the legislation error was one of wrongly specifying maximum penalty from 10 stroke of cane to 1 stroke instead, then courts should not impose 5 strokes which is in excess of the standing legislations, and sentences made in violation of erroneous legislation should also be deem as invalid or null & void.
Citizens have no obligation of upholding ineffective legislations nor complying with invalid sentences. Although the intention of the erroneous legislation could be understood.
For the purpose of completeness, I must also highlight that the corrected and currently standing legislation still has yet another mistake, which I had pointed out in the trial, which is the fact that Old Parliament Lane does not have any junction with East Bank of Singapore River. The stretch of Promenade in between Empress Place Building (Asian Civilization Museum) & Old Parliament is still missing from the legislation, and should be inserted into the legislation for the definition of area to be meaningful and comprehensible.
As charges are made out of erroneous legislations, they similarly lack the effectiveness in law, and I plea with the court to have the charges dismissed, as this is the most appropriate resolution with this reason after years of trial. CPC allows judge to dismiss case at any stage.
