Chief Justice leads five-member team to hear Tan Cheng Bock’s appeal against reserved Presidential Election
By Siau Ming En
Published: 10:02 PM, July 27, 2017
Updated: 11:08 PM, July 27, 2017
SINGAPORE — Chief Justice Sundaresh Menon will be among the five judges presiding over the appeal by former presidential hopeful Tan Cheng Bock against the basis and timing of the coming reserved Presidential Election.
This was revealed on Facebook on Thursday (July 27) by Dr Tan, who also welcomed CJ Menon’s involvement in the hearing despite the fact that he had chaired the Constitutional Commission tasked to review the Elected Presidency.
The commission had recommended the hiatus-triggered model that paved the way for the reserved election to be held in September.
Dr Tan said the other four judges are Judges of Appeal Judith Prakash and Steven Chong, as well as Justices Chua Lee Ming and Kannan Ramesh.
The case will be heard in the Court of Appeal on Monday, July 31.
“Having five judges (instead of the usual three) is significant. It points to the importance of the Constitutional issues for clarification,” said Dr Tan, who is a former Member of Parliament from the People’s Action Party. He narrowly lost the 2011 election to Dr Tony Tan, the current President.
Noting how some have questioned whether CJ Menon should hear the case, Dr Tan said both the Attorney General’s Chambers (AGC) and his lawyers had no objections when consulted.
“I welcome CJ’s involvement. In my view, no other judge knows more about the subject than the CJ,” he said. “It is therefore proper and beneficial to Singaporeans that he is available to address questions on the reserved election scheme and its spirit and purpose.”
After his legal challenge was dismissed on July 7, Dr Tan said his lawyers have advised “the judge may have misconstrued the relevant constitutional provisions”, and proceeded to file an appeal to the apex court.
continue reading here :
http://www.todayonline.com/singapore...ainst-reserved
Dr Tan no disrespect to you but we know how the court will decide on this matter . It would be better to use your talents by becoming an opposing politician .
Halimah says still considering whether to run for President
By Liyana Othman
29 Jul 2017 01:41PM (Updated: 29 Jul 2017 04:48PM)
SINGAPORE: Speaker of Parliament Halimah Yacob said on Saturday (Jul 29) she is still considering whether to run for President.
“I’m deeply honoured by the expressions of support, but I still need to further do my consultations,” she said.
Earlier this week, an article posted by Yahoo News Singapore had quoted a source close to her as saying that she has already made up her mind.
There has been much speculation over Mdm Halimah’s possible candidacy. Her heritage has also been thrown into the spotlight: This year’s election has been reserved for the Malay community, but her father was Indian-Muslim.
“I’ve been certified four times by the Community Committee as a member of the Malay community. It is something for the Community Committee to decide,” she said.
Mdm Halimah was speaking at a post-Hari Raya gathering of 20 women leaders of various faiths, including youths from the Inter-Religious Organisation, representatives from the Singapore Taoist Mission and the Young Women’s Christian Association.
The engagement session, held at An-Nahdhah Mosque’s Harmony Centre, brought together these women to learn more about Islam and the Malay culture. This is the first such celebration organised by the Singapore Muslim Women’s Association.
DON’T TAKE RACIAL HARMONY FOR GRANTED: HALIMAH
Mdm Halimah also cautioned Singaporeans not to take racial harmony for granted.
“Our young did not go through history, so they think this (current state) is what it should be and it will continue to be. But that is not the natural state. Look at all the countries around the world. There is no country that is harmonious,” she said.
“I lived through the (1964 race) riots, and I’ll tell you why it was one of the most frightening periods of my life that I never forgot.”
continue reading here :
Judgement reserved for Tan Cheng Bock’s appeal against reserved Presidential Election
By Faris Mokthar and Valerie Koh
Published: 9:57 AM, July 31, 2017
Updated: 3:50 PM, July 31, 2017
SINGAPORE — The Court of Appeal has reserved judgement on the appeal by former presidential hopeful Tan Cheng Bock against the basis and timing of the coming reserved Presidential Election, after a panel of five judges heard the case on Monday (July 31).
The court gave no date as to when the judgement by the five judges, among them Chief Justice Sundaresh Menon, would be delivered. The other four judges hearing the case are Judges of Appeal Judith Prakash and Steven Chong, as well as Justices Chua Lee Ming and Kannan Ramesh.
After the hearing, Dr Tan told reporters: “Singaporeans must fully understand the issue, not just accept (it). If in the end, we are found to be wrong, then we accept it. That’s what democracy is about.”
He filed the appeal to the apex court after his earlier legal challenge was dismissed on July 7.
After changes to the Elected Presidency scheme were passed, a reserved election will be triggered for a particular race that has not seen an elected representative for five consecutive terms.
The Government, on the advice of the Attorney-General’s Chambers (AGC) started counting the five terms from Dr Wee’s presidency. The late Dr Wee was the first President to wield the powers of the elected president, as the scheme was introduced during his term in 1991.
But Dr Tan has argued that it was unconstitutional to start the clock from Dr Wee’s term, as the former president had not been elected by the people, among other things. Instead, Government should have started counting from the popularly-elected Mr Ong Teng Cheong, who succeeded Dr Wee. This would make it four terms since the Republic has had an elected Malay President.
Earlier this month, Justice Quentin Loh dismissed the case. He ruled that after amendments to the EP scheme were passed, Parliament was “entitled… to specify President Wee’s last term in office as the first term” of office of the President for the purpose of the reserved election.
Senior Counsel Chelva Retnam Rajah, representing Dr Tan, argued on Monday that the lower court had wrongly applied the definition of “President” as being both an appointed and elected head of state. Rather, it should be the latter, he said.
He added that Parliament had “mistakenly” taken the position that Dr Wee was an elected president, and the lower court had erred in ruling that Parliament had not acted “under a mistake of law” in taking Dr Wee’s term as a starting point.
continue reading here :
‘Malayness’ of presidential aspirants an issue for community committee to decide: Mdm Halimah
By Louisa Tang
Published: 3:04 PM, July 29, 2017
Updated: 7:41 PM, July 29, 2017
SINGAPORE — Asked by reporters about the public discussion on the “Malayness” of potential presidential candidates, Madam Halimah Yacob pointed out on Saturday (July 29) that she has been “certified four times by the community committee” as a member of the Malay community.
The Speaker of Parliament successfully contested as a minority candidate for Jurong Group Representation Constituency (GRC) in the 2001, 2006 and 2011 General Elections, and for Marsiling-Yew Tee GRC in the 2015 polls.
While she is still considering whether to stand in September’s Presidential Election (PE), Mdm Halimah, whose father is Indian-Muslim, said that should she contest, her eligibility is “something for the community committee to decide”.
“I’m still thinking (about it). I’m honoured by the expressions of support that have been given at this event, but I still need to do further consultations and discussions, so yes, I’m still considering it,” said Madam Halimah, who was speaking on the sidelines of a post-Hari Raya interfaith event at the MUIS Harmony Centre.
The coming PE is reserved for Malay candidates. To qualify, presidential hopefuls will have to submit a community declaration to the community committee to certify their ethnic group. A fact-finding process will be conducted by the Malay community sub-committee to decide if the candidate belongs to the community. The person may be interviewed and required to provide further information, among other things.
Earlier this month, Mr Farid Khan Kaim Khan, 62, chairman of marine service provider Bourbon Offshore Asia Pacific, and Second Chance Properties chief executive Salleh Marican, 67, declared their intentions to run in the PE, if they are deemed eligible by the Presidential Elections Committee. Mr Khan, whose race is indicated as “Pakistani” on his identity card, had to fend questions about his “Malayness” at the press conference to announce his intent while Mr Marican – who is of Indian heritage – has been heavily criticised for his lack of fluency in the Malay language.
continue reading here :
Lets spoil our votes for the upcoming Reserved Presidential Election
Protected July 31st, 2017 | Author: Contributions
Let us all spoil our votes for the upcoming Reserved Presidential Election as a sign of united protest! It is not illegal to spoil our vote in a Presidential or General Election and you can still vote in GE 2020.
You can either return a blank vote or tick on two or more candidates to qualify as a spoilt vote count. You can also vote for a non-PAP preferred candidate to send a strong signal to the government that you don’t accept their choice of candidacy.
A large number of spoilt invalid votes say more than 15% of the total votes counted will send a strong message of defiance and protest to the government. In the previous PE, 1.76% or 37,000 rejected votes were registered out of a total of 2.1 million eligible voters who turned up to vote. 94% of the electorate showed up on that day to cast their vote.
If you however don’t turn up for the PE voting as a sign of personal protest, you can be barred from voting in the next GE 2020 and you need to register to be a voter again for future election.
Singapore has no place for racism and we have always believe that the best person to be our President or Prime Minister has to be free of race, language or religion barrier. More importantly, the person needs to speak up for the people and be accountable to the country.
continue reading here :
No intention to attack the Singapore judiciary, says Li Shengwu
Published: 1:23 PM, August 4, 2017
SINGAPORE — Harvard academic Li Shengwu, the son of Mr Lee Hsien Yang, has said that it was not his intention to “attack the Singapore judiciary or to undermine public confidence in the administration of justice”, weeks after his Facebook post criticising the Republic’s court system drew a response from the Attorney-General’s Chambers (AGC).
“Any criticism I made is of the Singapore government’s litigious nature, and its use of legal rules and actions to stifle the free press,” Mr Li wrote in a Facebook post on Friday (Aug 4), adding that he had received a “threatening letter” from the AGC.
He added that the AGC’s letter called his Facebook post “an attack on the Singapore judiciary and is in contempt of court”.
“It is not,” the academic wrote.
On July 15, Mr Li posted a link to a Wall Street Journal article on the 38 Oxley Road dispute involving his father, aunt, Dr Lee Wei Ling, and uncle, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong. He described the article as a “good” summary, and likened the public disagreements over his late grandfather’s house to a “political crisis”.
In the same post, Mr Li added a second link to a New York Times commentary alleging media censorship in Singapore, published on April 3, 2010, and wrote: “Keep in mind, of course, that the Singapore Government is very litigious and has a pliant court system. This constrains what the international media can usually report.”
The AGC said then that it was “aware of the post and is looking into the matter”. It has not commented on the issue since, and has not released the letter that Mr Li said he had received.
In his latest Facebook post on Friday, Mr Li said he had amended his July 15 Facebook post to clarify what he meant to say, and “to avoid any misunderstanding of my original private post”.
He did not change the setting of that earlier post to be publicly viewable. Mr Li said someone had taken an “unauthorised screenshot” of that initial private post and published it online without his permission.
He further explained his comments in that July 15 post, adding: “If my private post is read in context, it is evident that I did not attack the Singapore judiciary.
“In the context of sharing the summary by the Wall Street Journal, I intended to convey that the international media were restricted in their ability to report on the recent crisis, due to the litigious nature of the Singapore government, and the different legal rules with respect to press freedom in Singapore as compared to countries such as the United States.
continue reading here :
Li Shengwu claims he received “threatening letter” from AGC, amends
previous post to clarify meaning
By Thet Nyi Nyi | 3 hours
Li Shengwu wrote a Facebook post a while back.
It was a private post where he shared an article summarising the recent Oxley house drama.
That somehow caught the attention of the Attorney Generals Chamber (AGC) which claimed they would look into the matter.
Well, Li has provided an update on that.
On 15 July 2017, I made a posting on a “friends only” privacy setting, for the purpose of sharing a summary by the Wall Street Journal of the political crisis in Singapore. I also added a link to an editorial by the New York Times.
An unauthorized screenshot of my private post was however taken, and given to others that did not have access to my private post. Without my approval, the unauthorized screenshot of my private post, or content from my private post, was published and republished by others, including by Singapore’s mainstream media.
The Singapore Attorney General’s Chambers then sent me a threatening letter saying that my private post is an attack on the Singapore judiciary and is in contempt of court. It is not.
No one who published or republished my private post had approached me to clarify what I meant. Curiously, the Singapore media had time to seek statements from a Senior Minister of State and the AGC, but did not even do basic fact-checking – they inaccurately reported that the post was taken down, because they did not bother to contact me.
continue reading here :
Chen Shao Mao highlights difficulty in filing questions to PM Lee about the use of Parliament to defend his reputation
Posted on 2017-08-04 by Terry Xu
In a Facebook post made on 1 August 2017, Member of Parliament for Aljunied GRC, Mr Chen Shao Mao highlighted his difficulty in getting his question to the Prime Minister filed.
Below is Mr Chen’s posting in full:
(Parliamentary) Q&A – Getting to Yes.
Q. I’d like to ask the Prime Minister at the next Parliamentary sitting: “When should a Minister or political appointee go to court to defend his or her reputation and when should he or she refrain from private litigation and seek instead to address such allegations publicly, such as in Parliament?”
A. Your question asks about matters concerning decisions made by Ministers or political appointees in their personal capacity. As stipulated in the Standing Orders, parliamentary questions must relate to affairs within the official functions of a Minister. In view of this, do you wish to withdraw your question.
Q. I respectfully disagree.
The question relates (and I have revised its wording to make it clearer) to defending one’s reputation as a Minister or political appointee in his or her official capacity as Minister or political appointee, as the case may be. Has there been, for example, as alleged an abuse of one’s official position as a government Minister?
A. Your question has also been ruled inadmissible as it seeks an expression of an opinion. It is also not the function of Government to decide whether a Minister should seek court action to defend his reputation or refrain from doing so. Such decisions are made by the Minister himself.
Q. I respectfully disagree.
What I seek from the PM is not an expression of his opinion, but an answer on the norms upheld in his government among his Ministers and political appointees, as they relate to the issue of defending their reputation for honest dealing in their official or public capacity. The integrity of our leaders in government, and the consequent trust that our people place in the government, could not have been more emphatically touted by past governments. PM Lee Kuan Yew spoke often of it. Almost twenty years ago, PM Goh Chok Tong said that “if they’ve defamed us, we have to sue them – because if we don’t, our own integrity will be suspect. We have an understanding that if a minister is defamed and he does not sue, he must leave cabinet. By defamation, I mean if somebody says the minister is … less than honest. If he does not rebut it, if he does not dare go before the court to be interrogated by the counsel for the other side, there must be some truth in it.”
That was a clear enough statement of a norm (“standard, pattern, understanding, practice, how we behave”) .
Norms change over time, even if only slowly. The norms upheld in his government among his Ministers and political appointees in their official capacity is a fair question for PM Lee Hsien Loong.
Mr Chen Show Mao asked the Prime Minister what are the rules, directives, practices, understandings, standards and norms governing the circumstances under which a Minister or political appointee should defend his reputation in his official capacity in the courts or refrain from such court action and address allegations publicly, such as in Parliament.
Mr Lee Hsien Loong: I have addressed this in my Ministerial Statement on 3 July 2017. Any Minister who is accused of improper conduct must clear his name publicly. He should not allow the allegations to fester and affect the reputation of the Government. If it is a serious allegation, I would expect the Minister to take court action for defamation, unless there are other special considerations. He may also need to render account in Parliament, particularly if the matter concerns his discharge of public duties and is of public interest. These are not mutually exclusive options. In all cases, there must be public accounting.
Mr Chen was not prevented by Speaker to ask the question
The posting is pretty straightforward and clear, that Mr Chen was told that his question was not proper as it does not fall within the Standing Orders but he insisted on filing the question nevertheless.
Local news site, The Independent Singapore (TISG) has reported that Mr Chen had to ask a parliamentary question thrice before Speaker of Parliament Halimah Yacob allowed him to pose the question to Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong, indicating that the answers given in Mr Chen’s post were said by Mdm Halimah.
While Mdm Halimah had on many occasion blocked MPs from the Workers’ Party to file follow up questions but the report of this incident is far away from truth. Mr Chen did not pose the question in Parliament itself, it was instead in the form of a written question.
continue reading here :
AGC begins contempt of court proceedings against Li Shengwu
By Kelly Ng
Published 7:25 AM, August 04, 2017
Updated 9:40 AM, August 04, 2017
SINGAPORE — The Attorney-General’s Chambers (AGC) has commenced legal proceedings against Harvard academic Li Shengwu, the son of Mr Lee Hsien Yang, for contempt of court in relation to his Facebook post on July 15.
The AGC said it took legal action on Friday (Aug 4) as Mr Li had “failed to purge the contempt and to apologise by the extended deadline”.
The academic briefly responded on Facebook, writing: “Well, this is a new development. Fortunately, my friends know how to call a spade a spade.”
In his July 15 post, Mr Li had posted a link to a Wall Street Journal article on the 38 Oxley Road dispute involving his father, aunt, Dr Lee Wei Ling, and uncle, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong. He described the article as a “good” summary, and likened the public disagreements over his late grandfather’s house to a “political crisis”.
In the same post, Mr Li added a second link to a New York Times commentary titled “Censored in Singapore” alleging media censorship in Singapore, published on April 3, 2010, and wrote: “Keep in mind, of course, that the Singapore government is very litigious and has a pliant court system. This constrains what the international media can usually report.”
continue reading here :
Li Shengwu says he will not return home to face contempt of court proceedings
05 Aug 2017 10:51AM (Updated: 05 Aug 2017 06:29PM)
SINGAPORE: Mr Li Shengwu, who will face contempt of court proceedings for comments he made suggesting the city-state’s courts were not independent, said on Saturday (Aug 5) he would not be returning to Singapore.
The office of Singapore’s attorney-general said on Friday it had filed an application to start contempt of court proceedings against Li, a US-based academic, over a Facebook post he made on Jul 15. The legal move is the latest twist in a family feud over the fate of late Singapore founding father Lee Kuan Yew’s house that gripped the nation last month.
In his post, Mr Li, nephew of Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong and eldest son of Lee’s brother, Mr Lee Hsien Yang, described the Singapore Government as “litigious” and the courts as “pliant”.
Li, 32, is currently a junior fellow at Harvard University and told Reuters he expected to commence an assistant professor position with the university in the fall of 2018.
He said he would seek to defend himself through legal representation in Singapore but would not be returning to the country.
“I have no intention of going back to Singapore. I have a happy life and a fulfilling job in the US,” he told Reuters in an interview.
Mr Li on Saturday (Aug 5) also posted on Facebook his reply to AGC on Aug 4, reiterating that the Jul 15 post was set as private. In his letter, he stated that an anonymous Facebook user posted publicly an unauthorised screen shot of his post.
“This user is not on my Facebook ‘Friends’ list,” he said. “I do not know how this user obtained the screenshot of my private post.”
Read more at