Powers of the President of Singapore - Wikipedia
The , among other things, authorizes the Minister for Home Affairs to make an order directing that a person be detained for up to two years at a time if the President is satisfied that the detention is necessary to prevent the person from acting in a manner prejudicial to the security of Singapore or the maintenance of public order or essential services. A detained person is entitled to make representations to an advisory board made up of a chairman appointed by the President who is or has been, or is qualified to be, a Supreme Court Judge, and two other members appointed by the President after consulting with the Chief Justice. An advisory board must consider the representations and make recommendations to the President within three months from the date of detention. If an advisory board recommends that a detainee be released, and the government authority on whose advice or order the person was detained disagrees with the board's recommendation, the President has a personal discretion as to whether the person should continue to be detained. The President's power in this area is restricted by the requirement that the board must recommend the detainee's release; if further detention is recommended, the President has no power to direct otherwise.
Police Discretion Definition - Black's Law Dictionary
A smartphone prank by some local high school students was actually child porn, according to prosecutors. Now, a whole town is having a collective frank discussion about personal discretion, internet use and privacy.
ivaltron, From your post: "Why do you have to bring race into this? More importantly you are over looking something very fundamental for all of us. In this country we are all innocent until proven guilty. Should we be charged with a crime we have the right to a trial and be judged by a jury of our peers." First of all, no one can be so naive as to think that race does not play a part in how people view people. Please. Let's be honest. And this can also play in reverse....a black officer can look at a white man as needing to learn how it feels to get a ticket. The point is we do not KNOW what an officer is thinking when he uses his own personal discretion to decide if a person should or shouldn't get a ticket. Second of all, we have a right to a trial and to be judged by a jury of our peers. That's exactly it. The officer is not a judge. Maybe he shouldn't be deciding who gets a ticket and who doesn't. That's the point. It certainly provokes a lot of thought. I think there are things to think about seriously when one person, not sworn to be a judge but sworn to uphold the laws...decides to use discretion. Right or wrong, there is much to think about.
So then what’s the problem? A loophole in the town allows police officers to essentially ban any dog they believe to be a pit bull at their personal discretion.The CPA consists of six persons, two appointed at the personal discretion of the President, two on the advice of the Prime Minister, one on the advice of the Chief Justice, and one on the advice of the Chairman of the . The President also has discretion to appoint one of the members of the Council as chairman. As of 8 January 2013, the Chairman of the CPA was J.Y. Pillay, Chairman of the , and the other members were Po'ad bin Shaik Abu Bakar Mattar, former senior partner of ; former Government minister and chairman ; former judge Goh Joon Seng; former Singapore Totalisator Board chairman Bobby Chin Yoke Choong; and chairman of the companies in Singapore. There are two alternate members: former Government minister and chairman Lim Chee Onn, and chairman Stephen Lee. The CPA conducts proceedings in private, and its members are required to take an oath of secrecy. In the role as a police officer decision making is not easy. Society will use discretion against an officer if the situation does not involve a major crime. Many people will try to talk their way out of the simplest traffic violations, to some felonies. An officer only has so much discretion they are allowed to use. In some cases an officer depending on the situation will give out a warning, and advise the citizen to be aware of the law and not to do it again. However, there are other situations when a warning will not be sufficient enough, but the citizen will still insist on having a warning instead. An officer must use his/her own personal discretion every time they go to work. Discretion is not doing how you please. Police put to good use their power of discretion everyday and different issues involve different discretionary actions and some, none at all. It is the responsibility and the privilege of police officers to render or implement discretion upon their will.In 1996, Article 5A was inserted into the Constitution and Article 22H was amended; these changes clarified the situation by providing different procedures for circumventing or curtailing the President's discretionary power, depending on whether the Government seeks to do so by way of an ordinary bill or a bill seeking to amend the Constitution. Article 22H deals with attempts to alter the President's powers by introducing an ordinary bill. If this occurs, the President may exercise personal discretion to withhold assent to the bill. The Cabinet may, if it wishes, advise the President to refer to the Constitution Tribunal the question whether the bill in fact has the effect of circumventing or curtailing his discretionary powers. If the Tribunal determines that the bill does not have that effect, the President is deemed to have assented to the bill on the day following the day when the Tribunal's opinion is pronounced .The original Article 22H of the Constitution provided the President with personal discretion to withhold assent to any bill (other than a bill to which Article 5(2A) applies) which provided directly or indirectly for the circumvention or curtailment of the discretionary powers conferred upon the President by the Constitution. At that time, Article 5(2A) provided that the President could prevent Parliament from passing a bill seeking to amend certain specified clauses of the Constitution, including those dealing with the President's powers, unless it had been supported by not less than two-thirds of the votes cast at a national referendum. However, as Article 5(2A) was not yet in force, a question arose as to whether the Government was entitled to amend the Constitution in a way that circumvented or curtailed the President's discretionary powers, or whether Article 22H prohibited this entirely.1. Children make up their own minds.
The reality is, children decide for themselves on just how open or closed they feel about matters of nudity and personal discretion. Sure, we can model a positive attitude, but they are their own people, and they bring a certain temperament or position on the subject matter, too.