Without constitutional protection for property we still house our people;

if they were synonymous, then nonconstitutionalist illberalism, but in fact — non liberal constittuionalims — effect limtis on comunity norms and instituions derive from communities

Constitutionalism is about how we frame our public life,

I favour cosmopolital, autonomist, personally expressive — but I have never seen Singapore’s but progressvisit

We should be able to — and I think to a great extent Singapore has — crafted these values into a constitutionalist structure.

– so that they have public status but do not infringe overly into

And it would be folish to divide up aainst — we have liberal and illiberal (or should i say non-liberal) elements

I do not go as far as to say that the liberal state is a form of covert coercion — but how we create a framework for states to operate — – philosophical basis that any government needs to be constrained

and to use community and cultural values to constraint the state, rather than liberal ideals to constrained the

It isn’t that there aren’t collectivist dangers — and, Singapore has had that tendency, up till the 90s. But I simply don’t think this is true of Singapore today. We’re To Americans, constitutionalism means liberal constitutionalism, which leaves no room other forms of constitutions– theocratic constitutions, for instance, (but not theocracies) - or more communitarian constitutions like Singapore’s. It’s misguided — we are not a tyranny, we are not even, come to that, authoritarian, as characterised by Western media, because that suggests we do not abide by the rule of law. We do, but we are more instrumentalist about law. We govern on the basis of rule BY law, if you will, if not entirely rule OF law.

What is the point of electing people to run things if you have no trust in them and have to check on them yourself? I only have American politicians to compare them to, but on the whole I

singaporeans make the mistake of thinking that because our judicial review processes are not powerful in the way we are so used to seeing in american judicial review, that because our judges are more formalist in our legal reasoning, that this is somehow because our courts are not free or influenced by the but the fact is most british colonies which are westminister-style systems recognise parliamentary supremacy rather than constitutional supremacy. when the judges say they have no discretion, they don’t. now if the basic features doctrine was accepted in singapore it’s
i’m not being an apologist — i find teo soh lung such a disturbing case — and

“The willingness,” [says Scarry] “continually to revise one’s own location in order to place oneself in the path of beauty is the basic impulse underlying education. One submits oneself to other minds in order to increase the chance that one will be looking in the right direction when a comet makes its sweep across through a certain patch of sky.” (p7)

I’ve always appreciated having friends in whose company you learnt new things, who helped you, because of their superior eye and taste and knowledge, to help you learn to develop your own sensibilities, and to develop your sense and understanding of what was good, so that even when you did not instinctively like something you could understand why someone might. I was reminded of this only a few days ago, when a photographer friend was looking at two similar photos — i like this one, i said, looking at the line of the dancer’s body, but he showed me why the other, that i had dismissed, was compositionally superior to his photographer’s eye.

I used to have Kenneth for music (he’d make me mixed tapes of interesting music, things I would never have found for myself — these days I tend not to listen to new music anymore), though I still have Adeline for contemporary art and opera — Julian for science — Vaughn for typography and food.

I suppose my sole contribution to our set is giving people books, because I didn’t need anyone for literature — besides our set reads, we all read feverishly.

lee ufan, park seo bo and kim tschang yeul were my first introduction to korean contemporary art (post-war tansaekhwa movement art). the SAM hosted a large korean contemporary exhibition — and that was one of my first writing tasks at the Embassy, the exhibition opening speech.

bold, chromatic, western in tenor yet still somehow identifiably korean. singapore

I am familiar, like any good Singaporean primary school kid, with the social/political narrative, but this is the first time I’ve ever read the actual ‘In re: Maria Hertogh’ Court of Appeal judgment ​from 1951​. I had thought that it a purely a custodial battle between her Malay foster family and Dutch birth parents decided on custody principles (a close model on the UK 1925  Guardianship of Infants Act which applied in the Colony​ of Singapore at the time), a custody battle which was insensitively handled given the socio-religious context — but I did not realise until now that

​​

[1951] 2 MLR 241 — Coram: Spenser Wilkinson J, Wilson J, Foster Sutton CJ FM)

No custody order can be made of a married woman. In fact, from what we know today, that was most likely why ​she was married as soon as the custody battle began — a tactical move by her foster family.) It therefore became necessary to decide the preliminary issue of whether her marriage was valid or void.

Unlike a contract, where the fight is over which law governed the contract, in marriage law the classic rule is the dual domicile rule. Simply stated, each of the parties to the marriage must possess capacity to marry under the respective jurisdictions of their respective country of domicile at the time of marriage. This is because the validity of a marriage should not swing between valid and void between jurisdictions. Example: supposing a groom domiciled in country X where the minimum age of marriage is 25 and a bride domiciled in country Y (minimal age of marriage: 21.) attempt to marry when both parties are 23. This marriage will be found void ab initio by a Singapore court not withstanding the fact they got married in country Y or even in a third country (say Singapore, where the minimum age for marriage is 18) because by the law of his domicile, the groom had no personal capacity to contract a marriage.

Under Dutch law, except with the special dispensation of the Queen of the Netherlands, no one under 16 could marry (and no dispensation had been obtained in this case.)

Singapore law before 1961 recognised many forms of customary and religious marriage. You could celebrate a Chinese customary marriage or a Hindu temple marriage and these would be perfectly valid under Singapore law. Under Islamic law in Singapore a woman has capacity to marry once puberty has begun (which was the case for Maria.) Maria then clearly had capacity to marry under Singapore law — provided she were a Singaore domiciliary.

Domiciliary rules in common law countries are quite technical but it is quite simple when it comes to minors: your domicile during your minority is that of your father’s, unless you are illegitimate, in which case it is your mother’s domicile. Maria’s father is a Dutch national and despite his having spent 20 years in Indonesia and speaking fluent Bahasa was still a Dutch domicilary.

The Sottomayor v d Barros exception, even had it been relevant here, could not apply in this case because Inche Mansor was not domiciled in Singapore but in Kelantan.

Would have meant (I simplify) this: if a marriage was celebrated in singapore, and one of the parties is a singapore domicilary and the other foreign, then if there is an incapacity under the foreign law only, an incapacity which is unknown in Singapore,

Political narrative - white English judges and colonial insensitive to understanding local custom ruling favorable to white Dutch people

Religious clash — outrage is becausse nad christian girl was raised muslim or that a muslim girl was taken and given to christian (safe house convent)

Women’s right angle - free will and marriages and also about child marriages

It was not disputed that the child loved her foster ​family. ​ I found in the judgment

 that the English judge at first instance had found that compared to a European child of similar age she was more mature, and she also clearly articulated her wish to remain with her foster family.

Neither was religion the issue. It was clear to the judges both at First instance and at COA that although she was born to a Dutch family and had been baptised (in Indonesia by a Catholic priest) she did not regard herself as a white or Christian girl. And the court (three Englishmen, at that) went as far as to make the finding that she was not, for purposes of marriage, a Christian, so arguments by her Dutch family’s counsel that her marriage had to be governed by the Christian Marriages Ordinance and not Islamic law failed outright.

​What was decisive, however, was a far more technical reason and simply this: Maria was not a Singapore domiciliary.​

In marriage law 

The issue,

therefore, which we have to determine is not what religious teaching the infant should be deemed, or permitted,

to follow, but whether on the date of the marriage, the 1st August, 1950, she was “a person professing the

Christian religion” within the meaning of the Ordinance. That is the real issue on this particular aspect of the

case. What is the evidence on the point.

The infant was born on the 24th March, 1937, her father is a Duty subject and a Christian. On the 10th April,

1937, she was baptised in the Roman Catholic Church of St. Ignatius at Tjimahi, in Java, by a Roman Catholic

priest named Father de Koster, and up to December, 1942, when she commenced to live with one Che Aminah

binte Mohamed, she was brought up in a Roman Catholic environment. From then until the 1st August, 1950, she

was brought up in a Muslim environment, and at some stage between the two dates she embraced the Muslim

faith. In this connection the learned trial Judge, in his judgment, says:

now, 

Today we would call a dozen child psychologists to argue about whether it is in her best interest to be returned to her birth parents or with her adoptive family, whether she regarded herself as a Dutch girl or a Malay girl

It is the grand jury�s function not �to enquire � upon what foundation [the charge may be] denied,� or otherwise to try the suspect�s defenses, but only to examine �upon what foundation [the charge] is made� by the prosecutor. Respublica v. Shaffer, 1 Dall. 236 (O. T. Phila. 1788); see also F. Wharton, Criminal Pleading and Practice � 360, pp. 248-249 (8th ed. 1880). As a consequence, neither in this country nor in England has the suspect under investigation by the grand jury ever been thought to have a right to testify or to have exculpatory evidence presented.

US v Williams is about whether an indictment should be dismissed because the Government had failed to present “substantial exculpatory evidence” to the grand jury. SCOTUS says no because a grand jury’s function is not that of a trial jury. Their job is not to enquire upon what foundation [the charge may be] denied,� or otherwise to try the suspect�s defenses, but only to examine �upon what foundation [the charge] is made� by the prosecutor

and the grand jury no obligation to consider, exculpatory evidence, indictment

Antipasti Pasta - lasagne — 2 helpings by which I was just starting to fill up Ready for dessert She had secondi - proper Italian meal with the two ful courses Rolled beef and mushrooms - vegan friend - holding out hope she’d come along Two kinds of secondi She made me take two helpings — now i was really filled -regretting 2 lasagne portions out came the Salad ! But at least it’s a salad — refreshing to end the meal — and i knew salads signified the end of a meal Shall we have coffee — okay great coffee — – phew digestion she fetches a platter of nuts and home made biscotti and strawberreis oh this is aperfect end sip coffee and munch biscotti and have fruit, perfect! and out comes dessert — two kinds of tarts

I saw a Norwegian film — I think it is, I don’t filmed one year

Oh I know what this is, a verse novel, very trendy especially seems to be a revival of them in children’s and YA literature nowadays - but then you quickly realise it’s soemthing a list of stage directions - novella, in actions only — but then there is dialogue so you say — grouped together in space — repretitoin — novel time passing — so you say, oh it’s ike a linguistic depiction of a time-lapse move — each is a timelapse — you see that there is a point — we’ve oved in space as well norwegian film — timelapse over a year along one road camera is not stationery — it moves Dorthe Nors herself says headlines

You can see, even from the design of that page, that it is meant more for archival than content distribution purposes. And there is if the server is responding to local requests or even better, on the university network, speed would be okay, but it’s clearly never designed for highspeed sreaming CDN in other

Well it’s true international speeds are always slightly slower than local but your experience of streaming find would definitely suggest the problem is on the Syracuse server end.

You can see even from the archival page and the way the video displays that it was never designed for content distribution but as an archival it’s not designed for content distribution It’s not designed to respond rapidly to overseas request

server-end is designed not to respond to the request from overseas rapidly

probably doesn’t devote

resource issue

big name universities are also the ones with huge endowments and better able to allocate resources to they are also the ones with the name-draw for global audiences and interested in ensuring ease of content distribution videos have bg I don’t have trouble streaming high speed from the bigger (i.e. better funded) universities

not just from the archiving that its archival and occasional access value vs

marry under WC, has no capacity to marry any other woman under any other marriage law (which provision provides for this?!) - 4(2)

bit if you’re already married under another married law cannot marry again under women’s charter –

Australian approach was much better: requiring terror or abuse for duress seems to be a
not unreasonable but it does not family dynamics in certain kinds of asian cultures.

if domicile is changed then the prohiition from your old domicile would not apply even if a singaproe court was maing the determination fi the marriage is valid but both hti swif’es domicile and hsi own new domicile msut allow polygamy

unde

• i.e. say you’re bipolar and you got married during your manic phase — that already negates the validty of consent this would fall under 105 c - lack of valid consent

(the language of the provision stigmatising in

protective nature of

if section 105 causes (void marriages) can be raise dby any party with an interest. 105 causes however (voidable marraige) has to be was satisfied that it was “her desire to remain in this country and to continue in the muslim faith.

but if you don’t comply with

at the age of 18 you have full capacity to contract marriage but if you’re under 21, the women’s charter requires your parents to consent. the registrar would not issue you with a marriage licence otherwise. and

and yet the effect of non-compliance does not affect the validity of the marriage and yet the effect

it is still a completely valid marriage but

disability to contract marriages because already married person

formalities are decided by lex celebratonis loci and so

section 12 male and female

change will be a long time coming we were ahead of the UK by changing this legislati and in this regard we are ahead of

good but,

moh ah kiu predecessor

it is increasingly hard to find a country today with polygamous marraige but if you were to attempt to contract a marriage under a polygamous marriage law in that country, you would be under a disability unless you were able to establish a change of domicile to another country (not necessary the same one you’re attempting to marry in - just another one which does not have capacity prescriptions relating to monogamy) and, because of the dual domicile rule, you would need your prospective wife’s antenuptial domicile to also

solemnisation and capacity prescriptions. solemnisation have to do with the formalities — did you have a valid marriage licence? was the person licenced to perform marriages, procedural defects can be cured, some are critical ( generallyt he rule is that it has to comply withthe solmenisation rules of th jurisdiction you regardless of where you are domiciled to fulfil this set of prescirptions, it has to be in compliance with the other set has to do with capacity where go to your do you have mental capacity are you underage are you already married are you biologica

you would each have to have capacity to enter a both of your antenuptial domicile 3(5) preservers

foramlities do not matter as long as they

comply with the formalities of the forum provided (becos of the dual domicile rule) your prospective wife’s domicile as long as you have been (and are currently still) married under the women’s charter as long as you remain domiciled in singapore change of domicile would be 3(5) preserves — rebuttable presuption taht a singaproe citizen is a singapore domiciliary in litigation to

in the event that the registrar does issue a licence, however, notwithstanding that licence was obtained by fraud (you lied in your declaration, you asked another adult to pretend to be your parent,

lack of parental consent is not significant and will not

even though it is a statutory prescription, adminstrative filter your marriage is still valid

void and voidable marraiges

lack of consent (whether it is duress, mental incapacity, or other reasons) only renders your marriage voidable, not ab initio.

non-consummation, it is understood that this is a marriage that had been validly formed and is voidable because of certain subsequence that fundamentally changes the character of the relationship validly formed, but frustrated — dissolved v– not a divorce - annulment — exists up to the time it was dissolved but - it was not solemnised by a someone licenced to perform the marriage, or lack of capacity — you were underage or already married, for eg, then your void marriage ab initio - the marriage never legally existed, you do not even need a court declaration to this effet, it is automatic administrative

breach of capacity

divorce

two kinds of nullity judgments void (never existed legally — for eg, you had not yet dissolved a previous at the time of marriage)

CPF act does not trump the WC

the 106 remedy of voidable marriage is available only to parties to the marriage but 105 void marriage

105 void marraige allows 3Ps to apply to

we assume you need locus standi but you may not have to be able to show legal interest lwk is suggesting you can simply go to court as a “concerned citizen” to get a declaration of nullity of someone else’s married if you knew they were

Dear Sven,

Thank you so much for your birthday wishes!

sorry

Statutory prescriptions are 7 days 14-18, we are, generally, always at work in france you have a minimum of 5 weeks of vacation leave by statutory prescription; here, the statutory minimum is 7 days, and 14 days is the norm. 18 days is exceptionally generous.

not finding a case for the proposition that a singaporean man married under the women’s charter who then converts to islam cannot exercise his religious right to marry his second to fourth wife until he terminates his exisiting women’s charter marriage. but if he does divorce his first wife he can then contract polygamous marriage

sottomayor exception in t

coupled with section 9 child law

leave myanmar ba of bengal and andaman sea –

flag state jurisdiction is exclusive over ships on the high sea (art 92)

Obligation to provide assistance to any person in distress at sea applies regardless of the nationality or status of such a person or the circumstances in which the person is found (paragraph 2.1.10)

Definition of rescue: an operation to retrieve persons in distress, provide for their initial medical treatment or other needs, and deliver them to a place of safety (paragraph 1.3.3) singapores concern if passage through straits of malacca to singapore innocent passage — prejudicial to immigration law transit passage 2004 Amendments to SOLAS and SAR Conventions (cont.) States to coordinate and cooperate to ensure that masters of ships are released from their obligations with minimum further deviation from the ship�s intended voyage

The State responsible for the SAR region in which the survivors were recovered has primary responsibility for ensuring that such coordination and cooperation occurs, so that survivors are disembarked and delivered to a place of safety

Not party to

The United Nations Convention on Transnational Organized Crime, 2000 and two of its three associated protocols, the Protocol Against the Smuggling of Migrants by Land, Sea and Air, 2000 and the Protocol to Prevent, Suppress and Punish Trafficking in Persons, Especially Women and Children, 2000

Art 14 of the UDHR only provides right to seek asylum but does not oblige states to provide it. Singapore is not party to either of the Refugee conventions. CEDAW but specific reserveation entered on immigration issues control. (footnote)

issues of rescue and interception and of asyl

rescue distress at sea must be rescued, irrespective of their status. Refugees and asylum seekers may not fit easily within the established framework of practice regarding disembarkation, care and consular assistance, but the principles of protection are there to provide guidance.

responsibility lie for maritime interceptions, and for the treatment thereafter of those who are disembarked or returned to the port of departure or other port? interception -legal basis for interception asylum seekers trafficked people smuggled migrants Dr Balaji Sadasivan: ASEAN has discussed the issue of the Rohingyas, most recently on 1st March 2009 at the 14th ASEAN Summit in Thailand. Prime Minister Lee told the ASEAN Leaders that ASEAN member countries should not “export” their problems to one another. He also stressed that the problem should be addressed at the source. Singapore agreed that cooperation among the countries of origin, transit, and destination was of great importance. We also agreed that the Rohingya issue has to be viewed in a larger context, as it involves countries outside of ASEAN as well. To this end, the Bali Process, which is a regional Ministerial-level Conference on People Smuggling, Trafficking in Persons and Related Transnational Crimes, was the appropriate forum to tackle this issue. ASEAN will continue to contribute, where possible, to the resolution of this issue.

it is in conflict with s of the Immigration Act which . This 2012 , clarification was made that but that the risk nevertheless was for the shifting the humanitarian burden to ship masters’ conscience — cap anamur

in light of provisions of the immigration act and parliamentary intent

unless and until amendments to immigration act to create limited exception for ships carrying out flag state obligations to rescue duty to

it is is man removal of disincentives for hesitancy

too old and too long in school to still ahve bad habits of procrastination and shoddy record keeping

– harder and harder for me to take seriously — developing sociological rather than legal bent -

IMO Resolutions whether or the General Assembly or MSC are non-binding instruments but are incorporated by UNCLOS mandatory language in SOLAS convention contains mandatory language incorparting referenceing such non-binding — including circulars. To this end,

At present Singapore is conspicuously absent from the non-binding or voluntary regional protocols or

Participant in the non-binding Bali Process but not a declarant of the Jarkata Declaration in 2013. part of the voluntary bali process but not a declarant of the jarkata delcartion 2013

deterrent state policies which restrict access to asylum