M Ravi has lodged his challenge to the High Court on the EP issue on the ground that it is unconstitutional. His premise is that the reservation of the EP for a candidate based on race is unconstitutional. Holy shit, how come no one knows that this is racist and is unconstitutional, that our constitution is happy and open to have race imbedded and enshrined in it as a holy part of the constitution? And no one could see anything wrong with this and only M Ravi could! Or is it that M Ravi is not normal thus can see the not normal thing or the rest of the people who did not see anything unconstitutional about it are abnormal or simply daft? Even the whole legal fraternity could not see anything wrong with this amendment to the constitution! Is this normal or abnormal?
Ravi said that the changes to the constitution are racial discrimination, positive or negative racial discrimination is discrimination. Period.
Cheng Bock’s challenge is more technical in nature, about how to count correctly. This is another uniquely Singapore thing. Unable to count despite our great teaching methodology in arithmetics for the school children is no laughing matter. It is a national trait. Perhaps the govt should consult the primary school kids on how to count and the proper and correct way to count. Oops, it is the AGC office that did the counting. I don’t have much confidence in the ability of lawyers in counting. They can talk a dead person to life but counting 1,2 and 3 seems to be a big challenge to them.
Ok, is there anything else that is unconstitutional and would there be another mad lawyer, oops, I mean abnormal lawyer to stand up and say it is unconstitutional and must be challenged?
How about the unequal rights given to some people that are supposed to be more equal because they are richer, run big companies and all the craps that have no real relevance or relationship to the dignity and integrity of the office of the Presidency? Should not everyone be equal under the constitution and no one should be allowed to claim himself to be more equal than others just because he got a few dollars more than others?
The regulation to exclude 99% or more of the population because of some ridiculous criteria based on money and position in society is foul, smelly like shit. How can the constitution allow this to be included and no one cries foul? The criteria are saying that the citizens are not equal under the constitution. How can?
No legal mad man thinks this is mad? Maybe this is the reason. All the legal men and women are not mad to think this is mad and unconstitutional. So it must be constitutional. All men are equal but some are more equal than others. And this is a core principle in the Constitution of Singapore. Four legs are good, two legs are better, or is it my aristocratic background makes me different and of better breed than the hoi polloi, so I can be a President and the cheap masses cannot?