CNA Explains: What happens when the government disagrees with the courts?

[u/Ok-Rain3348]

https://www.channelnewsasia.com/singapore/government-parliament-judiciary-courts-legislative-changes-disagree-6458426

[u/stockflethoverTDS]

Gahmen wins lor even LKY’s iron will couldnt.

[u/RexRender]

Parliament has the last word on what the text of legislation is. The courts have the last word on what that text means. 

TIL!

[u/FlipFlopForALiving → u/RexRender]

We also have judicial ouster clauses to prevent them from reviewing certain things. Such clauses work for now, but their legality are being questioned and the judges can say such clauses are unenforceable and illegal.

So potentially, courts may even have the last say on what the text contains.

[u/perfectfifth_ → u/RexRender]

Brings me back to secondary school syllabus on legislature and judiciary 😂

Basically lawmaker and law interpreter.

[u/RexRender → u/perfectfifth_]

Wait this was taught in secondary school? Which subject?

Clearly I wasn’t paying attention oops…

[u/perfectfifth_ → u/RexRender]

Social studies

[u/FlipFlopForALiving → u/perfectfifth_]

And they even taught how laws are drafted and passed, the entire process lol

[u/Multifinality]

They pass laws to prevent the court from disagreeing.

Not so easy in other countries but easy in SG.

[u/tabbynat → u/Multifinality]

If parliament thinks that the court is interpreting the law wrongly then of course they can amend the law the clarify. That’s the point of a legislature. If the people don’t like the laws being passed then vote.

Rather that than US style courts legalize abortion then a new court comes in and takes it away, without any vote from the people

[u/nvbtable]

That is how the 3 systems should work.

Judiciary makes rulings based on existing laws even if it goes against the policy of the Executive. If existing laws are insufficient, then Legislative needs to amend those laws.

Main difference is Singapore Legislative has the voting block for express approval of amendments to law and is aligned with the Executive. That is rarely the case elsewhere.

[u/aucheukyan → u/nvbtable]

I doubt we have actual separation of powers, the legislature is going to change until the judiciary give up and they shoehorn the bill through

[u/It_was_a_False_Alarm → u/aucheukyan]

Only got judiciary and legislative + executive. Even the line between them is thin

[u/darain2 → u/It_was_a_False_Alarm]

When the AG is/was the personal attorney for the former PM and way past the constituional maximum age of AG, who is under the illusion that the judiciary is independent from the executive? Even the Constitution seems to be a suggestion than a hard rule for the ruling body.

[u/nvbtable → u/aucheukyan]

The high court already ruled and Shan said they'll change the legislation as opposed to saying they will appeal. So it doesn't seem like the judiciary will change their ruling or give up as you say.

[u/Multifinality → u/nvbtable]

This is well-expressed

[u/frozen1ced]

Should parliament disagree with how the law has been applied, the House can also move to amend the text such that the court will not interpret the case in the same way again.

So essentially, the laws can be amended to more closely fit the Legislative Branch's (i.e. Parliament) intention. And it's for the Judiciary (i.e. courts) to apply the amended law for future cases going forward.

[u/It_was_a_False_Alarm]

Change the judge, and then appeal

[u/CommieBird]

Lmao the Chng Shan Tze case was brought up. Always found is very funny that the moment the govt lost a CA case they proceeded to drop a legislative by amending the constitution. Can’t find this in any other democratic country.

[u/priore8]

If that's the case, just abolish the court. The parliament and the millionaire ministers double hat as the judges themselves then.

[u/PoisonerZ]

so what is the law minister doing about the transboundary haze act

[u/TNO-TACHIKOMA]

maybe it is just hardliner shan

[u/milopeng189]

Lol..

[u/Mynxs]

Would be investigations for scandalising the judiciary if it were someone else 

[u/zchew → u/Mynxs]

I think it's ok as long as you say you respect the courts' decisions

[u/Frosty-Tough6067]

Why this ever happen consider a kangaroo court ? At minimum which side the law minister is on?

[u/pispirit]

Singapore sibeh small. No separation of powers

[u/perfect987456]

Govn can just change the judges. Lol. Find more pliant ones

[u/blim9999 → u/perfect987456]

That describes the US system well. Fill the courts with your own appointees.

[u/bombsuper → u/blim9999]

No, federal judges in the US cannot be "changed", they hold lifetime appointments and can only be removed by impeachment, which is not easy to do (requires 2/3 majority in the senate).

[u/yellow-sparrow]

The PAP will change the laws, change the constitution, replace the judges, replace the chief justice etc until it gets its way

[u/zeeeeeeeem]

In this case if the spirit of the law is to deter mules then the overturn means the law is not working as intended no? I support the rule of law as a deterrence. And if the flexibility to enforce the spirit of the law through wording / legislature changes then go ahead. It is only a problem if it becomes an abuse of power. In which case it is up to the people to vote out the political party that does that. It is a line that is not that clear, but people need to have the education to recognize if the line is crossed.