Jamus Lim on Constitution of the Republic of Singapore (Amendment No. 3) Bill
Routinely amending laws and applying them after the fact will erode the stability of the rule of law - an issue that is especially thorny when applied to matters involving the Constitution. MP Jamus Lim made this point in Parliament on Wednesday (Nov 22) when he raised concerns over the proposed backdating of legislative amendments to September 2023, when President Tharman Shanmugaratnam took office. The amendments provide for the President and Government ministers to take on international roles in their private capacities if it serves the national interest. Assoc Prof Lim cited rare historical instances of retroactivity being applied and why they were justified. He questioned if the matters addressed in this Bill were “sufficiently grave” and if so, why they were not previously dealt with in a prospective rather than retrospective law. He asked when the Government was first made aware of a possible conflict with the Constitution, whether it was before the recent Presidential Election and if so, why the President taking on or retaining such appointments was not “clearly identified as an election issue”. He suggested that how the matter has been handled was “bordering on an abuse of the (PAP’s) Parliamentary super-majority to effect constitutional amendments of this nature at will”.
Routinely amending laws and applying them after the fact will erode the stability of the rule of law - an issue that is especially thorny when applied to matters involving the Constitution. MP Jamus Lim made this point in Parliament on Wednesday (Nov 22) when he raised concerns over the proposed backdating of legislative amendments to September 2023, when President Tharman Shanmugaratnam took office. The amendments provide for the President and Government ministers to take on international roles in their private capacities if it serves the national interest. Assoc Prof Lim cited rare historical instances of retroactivity being applied and why they were justified. He questioned if the matters addressed in this Bill were “sufficiently grave” and if so, why they were not previously dealt with in a prospective rather than retrospective law. He asked when the Government was first made aware of a possible conflict with the Constitution, whether it was before the recent Presidential Election and if so, why the President taking on or retaining such appointments was not “clearly identified as an election issue”. He suggested that how the matter has been handled was “bordering on an abuse of the (PAP’s) Parliamentary super-majority to effect constitutional amendments of this nature at will”.
Popular Shows
