Misconception No. 2: SDP working through "extra-legal" means

Home

Perspective

Special Feature

Tuesday, 21 April 2009

Singapore Democrats

At the opening of the Legal Year 2009, Attorney-General Walter Woon commented that the Singapore Democrats and our fellow activists have conducted a "campaign to force a change in our laws by extra-legal means." This has been the line that the PAP Government has been pushing through the years.

It is unfortunate that the ruling elite would sink to such depths. What we, the Democrats, are doing is to fight for the fundamental rights of free speech and peaceful assembly for Singaporeans.

These rights that are guaranteed in Article 14 of our Constitution. In and of themselves, these freedoms are important to defend and uphold. They are what distinguishes humans from other species of animals. They are what makes a society civilised and enlightened.

Freedoms of speech and assembly are also indispensable in helping to protect citizens from a despotic and greedy government. They enable us to collectively stand up to our rulers and prevent them from exploiting the people.

The ability to assemble in public and express our views will become increasingly necessary as Singapore enters a new period of economic change where the country will struggle to attain the kind of growth we saw in years past.

Income disparity will continue to widen and the people will get even more desperate as they find jobs harder to come by and wages diminish. Singaporeans will have to run even harder in a race to the bottom by having to compete with foreign workers whom the Government brings in by the hundreds of thousands.

All this while our ministers will continue to give themselves their million-dollar salaries and live in resplendent luxury.

The PAP has anticipated this and has introduced the Public Order Act (POA) to thwart mass peaceful protests in the future. There has never been a law as unconstitutional as the POA.

The Singapore Democrats have been defending our Constitution, which Article 4 states is the "supreme law of the Republic of Singapore". In other words we are upholding and abiding by the law in Singapore.

The Constitution also expressly forbids a government to pass any law that runs counter to it: "...any law enacted by the Legislature after the commencement of this Constitution which is inconsistent with this Constitution shall, to the extent of the inconsistency, be void." The POA is clearly such a law. As the Constitution is supreme to the POA, it is in fact the PAP that is acting through "extra-legal" means, not the SDP.

But when the PAP insists on violating the Constitution and bans citizens from exercising their right to peaceful assembly, Singaporeans must stand up and protect our Constitution. We need to do this by challenging and defying the repressive laws, and in the process uphold a higher law that is the Constitution of our Republic.

Share this article:

Comments (6)

Wed 22 Apr 2009 4:11 PM | Robox

Re: [color=red]"The Singapore Democrats have been defending our Constitution, which Article 4 states is the "supreme law of the Republic of Singapore". It other words we are upholding and abiding by the law in Singapore."[/color]

[color=black]I mentioned a few days ago that the legislative process in Singapore is such that law is derived from the following sources, mentioned in order of hierarchy:

1. the Constitution;

2. the Statutes;

3. judicial rulings (or judge made laws); and,

4. ground reality.

In 1991, a judge whose name I did not take note of - who remembers the name of forgettable kangaroo judges, anyway? - ruled that oral sex was legal so long as it led to male-female intercourse.

(Yawning Bread has written about this and is likely to have more information about this case.)

This became a judicial ruling that was in effect, law, until the Parliamentary debates of 2007 that exonerated only heterosexuals from ever being charged with "unnatural sex". However, it was an unconstitutional ruling because it discriminated against gays and was therefore in breach of the legal equality clause of the Constitution.

(But then, all of Singapore's kangaroo judges remain unfazed by their unlawful rulings - so who cares? Just perform the "mission of the courts" - to borrow Chan Sek Kiong's words at the New Year assault - in the characteristic [i]suka suka[/i] fashion that is synonymous with the PAP and its accomplices in crime.)

The reason I bring this up is that the SDP is in fact in very much the same situation.

(Typically, and in true PAP doublespeak, law minister Captain Kangaroo was lying at the New Year offensive when he said that if you want to change laws, get into the fraudulent Parliament that the PAP has taken steps to ensure that you can't - judge made rulings are part of our judicial system, and I've just highlighted one example of it.)

The SDP has two choices left if it doesn't have any Parliamentary seats but wants to challenge the legality of our laws

One is to initiate legal proceedings against the State independent of any other action such as civil disobedience.

But the legal costs for doing so have been made so prohibitive because the PAP does not intend for the courts to be used for the purpose they were set up for. And why should the SDP spend its own money to reverse the crimes committed by the PAP when they are already being paid to ensure that laws enacted are constitutional and lawful?

(Note: When you break the law, you are a criminal - the PAP comprises only criminals many times over.)

The second option for the SDP is to deliberately court arrest by way of civil disobedience to create the opportunities on behalf of ALL Singaporeans to challenge the unconstitutionality - the lawfulness - of the laws they are charged with.

Thus it is true:

Re:[/color] "It other words [the SDP] are upholding and abiding by the law in Singapore."[/color].

Not the PAP!

Wed 22 Apr 2009 4:19 PM | Robox

Re: [color=red]"The PAP has anticipated this and has introduced the Public Order Act (POA) to thwart mass peaceful protests in the future."[/color]

I may as well think out loud what is probably on many people's minds.

One of the provisions of the POA empowers the police to declare certain events to be "special events". I believe that I also read that written injunctions can be issued to individuals to stay away from such events.

Again, it is clear who these laws were devised for; the PAP plotted this.

With APEC in November, I am absolutely certain that the many members of the SDP will be issued those injunctions to thwart any possibility of run-ins with the police as in the past.

The undeclared Emergency Rule in Singapore has certainly gotten worse with this Act.

Wed 22 Apr 2009 4:22 PM | Robox

Re: [color=red]"Freedoms of speech and assembly are also indispensable in helping to protect citizens from a despotic and greedy government. They enable us to collectively stand up to our rulers and prevent them from exploiting the people."[/color]

Another check against despotic rule would be the enactment of laws mandating the death penalty for crimes against humanity.

Such crimes are typically committed by governments.

Wed 22 Apr 2009 6:38 PM | Blur

During one of the past elections, ministers were seen at polling stations
and yet this would deemed alright even
when the law was written to forbid this.
That incident clearly show how the laws
could be used or misuse.

Wed 22 Apr 2009 7:56 PM | Robox

Re: [color=red]"The Singapore Democrats have been defending our Constitution, which Article 4 states is the "supreme law of the Republic of Singapore". In other words we are upholding and abiding by the law in Singapore."[/color]

This should be the unifying theme of the SDP's platform at the next election campaign; effective election campaigns usually centre around one - or perhaps sometimes, a couple more - theme.

This theme can be substantiated with the list of Acts of Parliament that was written up on not too long here; most of them were about the unconstitutionality of laws to do with the media, but laws to do with the electoral system are also valid.

Then there's the PAP's abuse of the legislative function and process of that can be campaigned on.

And the many policies - stated and unstated - that are not in line with constitutional law.

This approach - to tell Singaporeans the truth of the illegal conduct of PAP governance - is definitely catching on as far at least as the blogosphere is concerned.

I'm sure that others not connected with the blogosphere can be similarly appealed to.

But look out for the obligatory defamation suits that the PAP considers to be part and parcel of any election campaign.

Making statements of fact can be ruled 'defamatory' by kangaroo judges in our kangaroo courts.

Statement of facts like "We made a police report".

I wonder, though. Can factual information that has already been stated in your website, say, be considered 'defamatory' just because it is later repeated in an election campaign?

Thu 23 Apr 2009 3:38 AM | jimmyboy007 - re:

[quote=Blur]During one of the past elections, ministers were seen at polling stations
and yet this would deemed alright even
when the law was written to forbid this.
That incident clearly show how the laws
could be used or misuse.[/quote]

They are the law, they can do anything they like!

That is democracy for u