Sammyboy RSS Feed
17-08-2016, 12:10 PM
An honorable member of the Coffee Shop Has Just Posted the Following:
Why even bother having a Parliament when Shanmugam prefers to call NMPs who have concerns about the Proposed Administration of Justice Bill and discussing matters in private. The 3 NMPs, amongst them a Law Academic had enough concerns to raise 14 amendments. No one has any idea what Shanmugam said but it was enough to convince them to withdraw all 14 amendments and support the bill. He also spoke to Lee Wei Ling who is also a medical academic and a President Scholar who had similar concerns. She qualified clearly which part she accepted. The media in this case both SPH and MediaCorp, the state's duopoly however chose to interpret it as an unqualified acceptance of the total bill.
Here are things that we all should be concerned about
1) Why is the Minister of Law usurping the powers of Parliament. Why the need for private discussions and not disclosing what what was said. Minutes of the discussion would be welcome as nothing in it suggest going into matters of State secret.
2) The 3 NMPs including a University academic having come up with 14 amendments chose not to say what changed their mind except for Ms Kuik who gave a response in her Facebook that never provided any clarity except that Shanmugam convinced them.
3) What happens when Shanmugam leaves God's green's earth. Who is going to interpret the law? 4 people - 3 NMPs and daughter of Singapore's founding father could not work out the Bill themselves. I would suggest that we are talking about people who are reasonably qualified to address the issues amongst them includes 2 university academics and one of whom is in Law.
4) No one is exactly clear or even knows what triggered in the Bill in the first place. We have charged people numerous times in court for contempt of Court so why the new bill. I bet if 10 people were picked at random by a blind person in the middle of Raffles Place and asked if they know what triggered the bill, none of them would have a clue. But all 10 can give a reasonable answers if the question was on the littering laws
5) I think we all recognised that this Law is best ambiguous but to does makes it clear that the Govt can defend itself in the name of "public interest". Unfortunately an individual may fear doing it even if it is in "Public Interest" especially if the Minister leaves this World.
It does resonate with Lee Wei Ling's and her journalist contact's observation about the lack of transparency of this Government compared to the past 2 Governments.
Click here to view the whole thread at www.sammyboy.com (http://www.singsupplies.com/showthread.php?234448-Shanmugam-or-Parliament&goto=newpost).
Why even bother having a Parliament when Shanmugam prefers to call NMPs who have concerns about the Proposed Administration of Justice Bill and discussing matters in private. The 3 NMPs, amongst them a Law Academic had enough concerns to raise 14 amendments. No one has any idea what Shanmugam said but it was enough to convince them to withdraw all 14 amendments and support the bill. He also spoke to Lee Wei Ling who is also a medical academic and a President Scholar who had similar concerns. She qualified clearly which part she accepted. The media in this case both SPH and MediaCorp, the state's duopoly however chose to interpret it as an unqualified acceptance of the total bill.
Here are things that we all should be concerned about
1) Why is the Minister of Law usurping the powers of Parliament. Why the need for private discussions and not disclosing what what was said. Minutes of the discussion would be welcome as nothing in it suggest going into matters of State secret.
2) The 3 NMPs including a University academic having come up with 14 amendments chose not to say what changed their mind except for Ms Kuik who gave a response in her Facebook that never provided any clarity except that Shanmugam convinced them.
3) What happens when Shanmugam leaves God's green's earth. Who is going to interpret the law? 4 people - 3 NMPs and daughter of Singapore's founding father could not work out the Bill themselves. I would suggest that we are talking about people who are reasonably qualified to address the issues amongst them includes 2 university academics and one of whom is in Law.
4) No one is exactly clear or even knows what triggered in the Bill in the first place. We have charged people numerous times in court for contempt of Court so why the new bill. I bet if 10 people were picked at random by a blind person in the middle of Raffles Place and asked if they know what triggered the bill, none of them would have a clue. But all 10 can give a reasonable answers if the question was on the littering laws
5) I think we all recognised that this Law is best ambiguous but to does makes it clear that the Govt can defend itself in the name of "public interest". Unfortunately an individual may fear doing it even if it is in "Public Interest" especially if the Minister leaves this World.
It does resonate with Lee Wei Ling's and her journalist contact's observation about the lack of transparency of this Government compared to the past 2 Governments.
Click here to view the whole thread at www.sammyboy.com (http://www.singsupplies.com/showthread.php?234448-Shanmugam-or-Parliament&goto=newpost).