Photo of Supreme Court from Supreme Court

Singapore’s High Court yesterday (July 7) invalidated Dr Tan Cheng Bock’s constitutional challenge to the coming Presidential Election reserving for only the Malays. Although Justice Quentin Loh from the High Court noted that the elected Presidency is only legislated in 1991, the judge refused to acknowledge President Ong Teng Cheong as the first elected president, and passed the bucket to the Parliament saying that the Parliament gets to decide who is the first elected president. In fact, the judge said that there is “nothing written in Constitution” to limit the Parliament’s power, rendering the Parliament’s powers the most powerful in Singapore.

Under corrupted dictator Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s influence, the PAP-majority Parliament ruled that appointed President Wee Kim Wee was the elected president even though the latter has never went through a single election.

High Court judge Quentin Loh defended the Prime Minister’s decision saying:

“Nothing in the Constitution limits Parliament’s power to start the count from the term of office of a popularly elected President. The Constitution expressly imposes a duty on Parliament to specify the first elected President and implicitly gives Parliament the power to do so.”

The judge then defended the Parliament and interpret the vaguely-expressed Constitution to the PAP government’s advantage:

“The Constitution also does not only refer to Presidents elected by the citizens of Singapore for terms of six years. It could also refer to Presidents, like President Wee Kim Wee, who were elected by Parliament for four-year terms, he added.
The plain language of the Constitution only refers to the person who holds the ‘office of the President’ without any words to draw a distinction between Presidents who were elected by Parliament, and those who were elected by citizens”. Ultimately, since it does not fetter Parliament’s power… Parliament’s choice of the first elected President is a policy decision which falls outside the remit of the courts.”