Legal and Political Controls on the Prorogation Power in Singapore
The prorogation power is a crucial constitutional authority vested in the executive branch of government. In Singapore, the exercise of this power has attracted significant attention, particularly regarding the appropriate extent of judicial control. This article argues that judicial control of the prorogation power in Singapore should be limited to enforcing the Constitutional provisions directly or indirectly regulating the power. The primary focus should be on upholding the 6-month limit on the interval between sessions of Parliament. However, beyond these Constitutional provisions, the article contends that the principle of responsible government comes into play. Responsible government, which is undermined when a Prime Minister lacking parliamentary confidence advises prorogation, is better safeguarded by political controls rather than legal controls. Specifically, the reserve power of the President to dismiss a Prime Minister who lacks parliamentary confidence can serve as a mechanism to prevent or overturn a prorogation advised under such circumstances. Therefore, judicial control of prorogation beyond enforcing the relevant Constitutional provisions is unnecessary.
|
Enforcing Constitutional Provisions
The Constitution of Singapore contains specific provisions that govern the prorogation power, with the most significant being the 6-month limit on the interval between sessions of Parliament. This provision ensures that the government remains accountable to the legislature and prevents prolonged periods of legislative inactivity. Judicial control should be confined to upholding this Constitutional requirement, ensuring that prorogation does not exceed the stipulated timeframe. By enforcing this provision, the judiciary acts as a custodian of the Constitution, safeguarding the balance of powers between the executive and legislative branches.
Responsible Government and Political Controls
Responsible government is a foundational principle in democratic systems. It necessitates that the executive branch, particularly the Prime Minister, enjoys the confidence of the legislature. When a Prime Minister advises prorogation without commanding parliamentary confidence, responsible government is fundamentally undermined. However, it is argued that the appropriate mechanism to address this issue lies within the realm of political controls rather than judicial oversight.
The Constitution empowers the President of Singapore with a reserve power to dismiss a Prime Minister who lacks parliamentary confidence. This reserve power acts as a critical safeguard against the abuse of the prorogation power. In situations where a Prime Minister advises prorogation without the support of Parliament, the President can exercise this power to prevent or reverse the prorogation. By doing so, the President serves as a check on executive power and ensures that responsible government is upheld.
The Unnecessary Need for Judicial Control
Given the existence of political controls, namely the President’s reserve power to dismiss a Prime Minister who lacks parliamentary confidence, there is no compelling need for judicial control of prorogation beyond enforcing the relevant Constitutional provisions. The judiciary’s role should be limited to interpreting and applying the law, rather than intervening in political matters that can be adequately addressed through political processes.
Judicial control beyond Constitutional provisions risks blurring the separation of powers and encroaching upon the discretionary authority of the executive. The prorogation power is inherently political, and its exercise involves complex considerations of governance and public interest. Therefore, allowing judicial interference beyond the confines of the Constitution would undermine the delicate balance of powers and unduly burden the judiciary with decisions that are better left to the realm of politics.
Conclusion
In Singapore, upholding responsible government and ensuring the appropriate exercise of the prorogation power can be achieved through a combination of legal and political controls. Judicial control should be confined to enforcing the Constitutional provisions, such as the 6-month limit on the interval between sessions of Parliament. Beyond these provisions, the President’s reserve power to dismiss a Prime Minister lacking parliamentary confidence serves as an effective mechanism to prevent or reverse prorogation advised under such circumstances. By striking this balance between legal and political controls, Singapore can maintain a robust system that upholds responsible government and preserves the separation of powers.
By , Law & Bar Legal consultant Team
Published By law & Bar
For further inquiries, contact us info@lawandbar.com
1 thought on “Legal and Political Controls on the Prorogation Power in Singapore”
I have previously perused out this substance. That is extremely fascinating. Gratitude for sharing this instructive data. I’m sitting tight for your next data.
single family office Singapore structure