During the British colonisation of Singapore, the Cocos Islands were attached to Singapore, from 1903 onwards, but given to Australia in 1955. Britain granted Singapore partial internal self-governance that year. One should note that Australia gained its self-governance from the British in 1901, and officially became autonomous in both internal and external affairs in 1942. By transferring the Cocos Islands to Australia, the British colonisers discriminated against Singaporeans. Christmas Island was administered as a part of Singapore when the British returned after World War II. However, it was similarly transferred to Australia in 1958.Back then, in the mind of the British, Singapore (part of Malaya at the time) was nothing more than just one of their colonies to be used for profiteering, resource extraction and selfish geopolitical interests.
Instead of a third statue of Stamford Raffles, it would have been better to feature people who represent the generations of hard-working Singaporeans which contributed to the country’s prosperity, education and social harmony.
We could have celebrated diversity with a statue of four hands – coloured black, brown, yellow and white – holding each other, a statue of Nanyang University founder Tan Lark Sye or a monument to honour the Samsui women who helped build Singapore. This is the 21st century. It’s time to let go of colonialism and be proud of what we have achieved as Singaporeans.
Wei Ling Chua, Queensland, Australia
Malaysian speaker’s decision could be justified
I refer to the report, “Malaysia’s anti-party hopping law tested by controversial ruling on sacked MPs”(July 11).Parliamentary Speaker Johari Abdul on July 9 informed opposition party Bersatu that six former party members of parliament, who had been sacked earlier this year for declaring their support for Malaysian Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim in exchange for financial support from the government for their constituencies, would not have to vacate their seats.
The speaker had been called upon to decide the fate of the six MPs under Article 49A of the constitution, the country’s anti-party hopping law inserted into the supreme law of the land through an amendment act which was passed by the previous parliament and came into force in October 2022.
Since late last year, Bersatu realised that it had a problem: the six MPs did not resign as members or join other parties – which would have caused them to cease to be MPs under Article 49A(1)(a)(i) – but gave their support to Anwar.
The six did not also fit into any of the then existing boxes in Bersatu’s party constitution which would end their membership and lead to fresh elections for their parliamentary seats.
There was a “loophole”, so to speak. Bersatu wanted them to lose their parliamentary seats but expelling them would not result in fresh elections under Article 49A(2)(c).
So Bersatu held an extraordinary general meeting on March 2, where it added three subclauses to its constitution. The subclauses therefore became the party’s governing law only after the six declared their support for Anwar.
Generally, amendments to the law do not have retrospective effect. A law is retrospective if it takes away or impairs a vested right acquired under existing laws, or creates a new obligation or imposes a new duty, or attaches a new disability, in regard to events already past.
Did Bersatu take away or impair its six MPs’ vested rights acquired under the party’s constitution before the amendments? Given his power under Article 49A(1), read together with clause (3), the speaker may well have established so.
The speaker’s decision is arguably in accordance with legal principles.
Mohamad Hafiz Bin Hassan, lecturer, Faculty of Law, Multimedia University, Malaysia
ncG1vNJzZmivp6x7tK%2FMqWWcp51kvLG1zaKmp2ecmsG1sdGsZpqqpJ6wrbGObGlwaWBrf3C%2FyKeemqifp7Jusc2orKCgXajBosDUnqpmm5%2BhvK%2B1wKVkpZ2RmbKzvw%3D%3D