Singapore Democrats

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!

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.

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.

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.

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?

[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