Staying true to her colours. Sylvia Lim did the 'suppressio veri suggestio falsi' again.

In her adjournment motion speech in Parliament, Sylvia Lim quoted the advice of a “prominent” Queens Counsel filed by Dr Tan Cheng Bock in Court, that the Art was unconstitutional. 

But she did not disclose that Tan Cheng Bock also withdrew the QC’s advice. 

Clearly the advice had no merit or Tan Cheng Bock would not have withdrawn it. 

By suppressing the fact that Tan Cheng Bock had withdrawn the QC's advice, Sylvia Lim intended to mislead Singaporeans.

In legal language, such behaviour is described as:

"suppressio veri suggestio falsi" - suppressing the truth to suggest something that is false.

In 2015, the High Court judge, Quentin Loh described one of Sylvia Lim’s Parliamentary speeches as an exercise of “suppresio veri, suggestio falsi”.

What Sylvia Lim has succeeded in her adjournment motion is to further discredit her credibility. 

Invited but declined invitation. So who is not upfront?

Was the Government upfront about their intention?

Right from the beginning, minority representation was their concern.

When the Constitutional Commission Committee was set up in February 2016, one of the TERMS OF REFERENCE was to 'consider and recommend what provisions should be made to safeguard minority representation in the Presidency'. 

So why is WP surprised that the reserved election has taken place now rather than later?

DURING THE REVIEW by the Constitutional Commission, over 100 people and organisations submitted their views to the Constitutional Commission Committee, including WP.

The WP were invited to present their views publicly, and make their case before the Constitutional Commission.

But they chose not to do so.

20 contributors were invited to give their views to the Constitutional Commission and the WP was the only one that declined the invitation.

Why did WP choose not to give their views publicly to the Constitutional Commission on a matter that concerned the highest office in the land?

UPFRONT OF NOT?

1. Safeguarding minority representation was one of the terms of reference for the Constitutional Commission during the review.

2. Law Minister Shanmugam said in a townhall dialogue on 15 September 2016 that the reserved election was a policy decision.

3. PM Lee said in Parliament on 8 November 2016 that the GOVERNMENT WILL DECIDE how the count would start.

Quote:
When should the racial provision start counting? The Constitutional Amendment Bill states that the Government should legislate on this point and the Government intends to legislate when we amend the Presidential Elections Act in January next year."

Whether in Parliament or outside Parliament, the Government had made clear their intention right from the beginning.

Guess who is misleading people?

POLICY DECISION, said Mr Shanmugam In the first townhall dialogue in September 2016. (http://bit.ly/2xTDL5C)

PM LEE indicated the same when he spoke in Parliament in November 2016 during the debate.

PM Lee said:
"When should the racial provision start counting?
The Constitutional Amendment Bill states that the Government should legislate on this point and the GOVERNMENT INTENDS TO LEGISLATE when we amend the Presidential Elections Act in January next year."

In other words, it is a GOVERNMENT DECISION when the counting would start.

So who is misleading people?

Sylvia Lim has conveniently chosen to focus people on her own misinterpretation of "we have taken the Attorney-General’s advice" and ignored all that was said by PM Lee just before this.

This isn't the first time she has misled in Parliament. She is the only one with the distinction of being called out by Justice Quentin Loh for misleading Parliament.

Parliament is supreme. Parliament is where policy decisions are made. The role of the AG is to advise the Government on the legal aspects of the decisions they make, the legitimacy of their policy decisions.

As a Parliamentarian and a lawyer by training, Sylvia Lim should know the role of the AG to government.

In her adjournment motion speech, she quoted various 'who said what' EXCEPT from the 68-page judgement delivered by the appeal court.

If Sylvia Lim is a serious seeker of answer she would have read the judgement for therein lies the answer to her question, addressed in great detail.

Instead she chose to mislead in order to insinuate in Parliament.

Chief Jusice Menon, in his judgement, wrote that Constitution mandates that Parliament should decide on how the count would start. He also said that Constitution allows the Government to choose any of the 5 terms preceding 2017 as the first term. (http://bit.ly/2yJ5J33)

Context and meaning: Taking AG's advice

A lesson on context and meaning. No SkillsFuture credit needed. This lesson is free. 😂😂😂

Taking the AG's advice? Meaning is found in the overall context. 

To quote him more fully, this was what PM Lee said in Parliament in November 2016:

"When should the racial provision start counting?
The Constitutional Amendment Bill states that the Government should legislate on this point and the Government intends to legislate when we amend the Presidential Elections Act in January next year.
We have taken the Attorney-General’s advice. We will start counting from the first President who exercised the powers of the Elected President, in other words, Dr Wee Kim Wee."

(1) The Constitutional Amendment Bill states that the Government should legislate on this point ...

==> Constitution is clear that the GOVERNMENT SHOULD LEGISLATE. That is, the Government decides (not AGC).

(2) ... and the Government intends to legislate..

==> PM Lee also made it clear that the GOVERNMENT INTENDS TO LEGISLATE. That is, the Government intends to decide.

Thus:
The Government intends to legislate, the Government takes a decision. With that decision, the Government takes advice from AG on all the legal aspects involved in making this legislation. Having taken care of all the legal aspects involved in the legislation, PM Lee informs parliament that they will start the count from President Wee Kim Wee.

Easy to understand?

Sylvia Lim misleading Parliament again!

Why did Sylvia Lim blatantly mislead in Parliament that nobody came out to clarify that it was a policy decision? 

Does she respect the sanctity of the Chamber in which she is privileged to speak? 

Right after the White Paper on the proposed changes to the Elected Presidency was released by the government, in the first townhall dialogue helmed by Law Minister K Shanmugam 15 September, Mr Shanmugam was asked about the 'circuit breaker' that would trigger a reserved election. (http://bit.ly/2xTDL5C)

Mr Shanmugam replied, "The most direct answer is actually, the Government can decide. When we put in the Bill, we can say we want it to start from this period. IT'S A POLICY DECISION." 

In making a policy decision on how the reserved election will be triggered, there will be various legal aspects and questions that need to be considered. On such matters, the government would seek the AG's advice, including how to draft the bill. 

What is so difficult for a lawyer and parliamentarian to understand?

As a parliamentarian, Sylvia Lim should know that the AG does not tell the government what to do. The AG advises the government on the legal aspects of their decisions.