Parliament sovereignty versus the Constitution

Shanmugam raised the concept of Parliament sovereignty in his answers to the issues raised by Sylvia Lim in Parliament. He is right, absolutely right in the interpretation of Parliament sovereignty, that the Parliament makes laws and can repeal laws, annul laws by legislation. That is the role of Parliament, the law makers.
 
Thus, when he said the govt made a policy decision to start counting from Wee Kim Wee, it has the right to do so, even to start with any other president or something like that, because the govt/Parliament is sovereign, can do as it pleases in a way. It writes laws and strikes out laws, it is the law maker, the law, the sovereign.
 
I would not dare to challenge Shanmugam on his brilliant interpretation of Constitutional Law. If he is wrong, I am sure many other brilliant lawyers would point it out, or at least the AGC would be there to keep watch, or the Chief Justice. Interpretation of the Law is the precinct and responsibility of the Judiciary, which I think includes the Supreme Courts and the AGC. Please excuse me if I am wrong, I am only a layman and this is a layman’s simple view of the govt and judiciary.
 
Just one point that I am still not very clear. Parliament may be sovereign, but it must still respect and abide by the Constitution. The Constitution is supreme in a way and the govt must work within the Constitution. If it does not like any law in the Constitution, it has to repeal/annul or strike it out and replace it with a new law. It cannot make a policy that is against the Constitution. It cannot violate the Constitution or it would be lawless, against the rule of law.
 
The interpretation or policy decision to use Wee Kim Wee as the reference point, as the first Elected President, to rule that the latest EP election is due, does it violate the Constitution? The Constitution also said that a reserved EP for minority president is due only after 5 terms when the minority did not have a president. To use Wee Kim Wee as the reference point, it is violating the provisions in the Constitution, the intent and spirit of the reserved EP in the Constitution?
 
A govt policy decision cannot violate the Constitution if I am not wrong. It would become unconstitutional. The govt should seek to change the Constitution first, using its sovereign right to repeal the law and then act on it under the new law. Can the govt suka suka say it is a policy decision to use any past president to determine the 5 terms provided in the Constitution, or ignore the 5 terms, or declare a reserved EP for a minority president anytime if wants under the present Constitution?
 
Any brilliant lawyer thinks he is up to it to explain the above? Making a policy decision ultra vires the Constitution is definitely unconstitutional. Tiok boh? Parliament is sovereign but still bounded by the Constitution. Otherwise it is lawlessness. Remember the meaning of Rule of Law? What did the Constitution say about the 5 terms requirement? What is the spirit of the Constitution on the need for a reserved minority president?
 
PS. This is what Shanmugam said in his response to Cheng Bock.
 
‘Here is what I said in full, as reported in CNA (link below).
“Q: When would the circuit-breaker (to hold a reserved election after a racial group has not been represented in Presidential office after five continuous terms) come into effect?
 
Mr Shanmugam: 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 but there are also some legal questions about the Elected Presidency and the definition and so on, so we have asked the Attorney-General for advice....’

What do you think? Or any brilliant lawyers out there think otherwise, or all agree with our brilliant Law Minister?