ponpokku (09Oct2012) wrote:
Re Thread: Madam Vellama Marie Muthu and the health of democracy in Singapore.
it will be useless to bring this into parliament, since the incubents held majority seats, more than enuff to prevent changes to anything... but calling for a referendum or public vote 'might' help, even thou it's 60/40 to the pappies advantage in the last election.
Ostensibly, the learned Judge felt that sufficient ambiguity in the wording of the constitution to admit Mdm Vellama's interpretation for adjudication and so invited the AGC to contribute its opinion.
At the critical juncture, it would have been too late for any MP to do anything about the ambiguity in the constitution since the proble of Hougang being MP-less for a possibly ambiguous duration time had surfaced and consequent constitutional ambiguity, the services of the court had to be sought to decide the conflicting interpretations of the constitution by Mdm Vellama as opposed to what the AGC thought which I understand according to the then consideration of the learned Judge, was severe enough to warrant a proper hearing in court.
This was an inconvenience perpetuated by the oversight of MPs in their sculpting the constitution rectified by the courts with the assistance of both the applicant Mdm Vellama and the AGC whose interpretation differed.
Each was defending its own interpretation of the law with regard to the good and conscientious conduct of society- each appointed its own council to defend each's interpretation.
This constitutional case in court was an exercise of scholarly discussion approved by a learned Judge. Neither party should ask the other for a subsidy of its dues paid in the course of participating in this discussion in so far that a respected Judge found such discovery necessary.
The AGC's attempt to reclaim its own cost from Mdm Vellama seems to me the behaviour of a cheap skate party in a relationship seeking a free ride in this exercise of constitutional discovery.
Speculation could be made that the Judge chose the AGC's interpretation of the constitution because the SC that the AGC retained was more qualified and experienced that ordinary lawyer M Ravi in presenting his client's case before the learned Judge. The AGC raked up a massive legal bill in the process which the AGC must now bear. The AGC won the match with superior legal skills. The AGC should now NOT go overboard and unnecessarily/ unfairly burden Mdm Vellama with its own legal cost.
A good outcome of this case would be for the AGC to include the constitution in Singapore's national discussion so that problems of such ambiguity could be spotted early and rectified through parliamentary application and debate so that such needless conflicts of interpretation need not arise where the government and its citizenry suffer from misunderstandings as to each parties respective rights and responsibilities.
Writing the constitution in simple, clear, and unambiguous language is a skill that parliamentarians in Singapore ought aspire to assimilate.
With good training, the AGC should improve its communication skills, so that Parliament can be informed promptly and accordingly as to ambiguities of the constitution so that it can be clarified and updated, always keeping in mind the good of all, if not the welfare of the least and poorest members of our compact and united society.
===================
@
No comments:
Post a Comment