Once a ceremonial position modelled after the constitutional monarchy in the United Kingdom, the office of the President of Singapore was transformed from an appointed to an elected one in 1991. As the head of state, but not the head of government, the elected President was to have additional discretionary powers involving the spending of financial reserves, appointment of high-ranking public servants, and certain ministerial powers to detain without trial. In 2016, a constitutional commission was convened to consider further reforms to the office and the elections process. This book explores Singapore's presidency, assessing how well it has functioned, discussing the rationales for an elected presidency, and evaluating the constitutional commission's recommendations for reforms, including the need for minority representation in the office. In doing so, the book provides important reflections on how the constitutional reform process raises crucial questions about the rule of law and the practice of constitutionalism in Singapore.

Once a ceremonial position modelled after the constitutional monarchy in the United Kingdom, the office of the President of Singapore was transformed from an appointed to an elected one in 1991. As the head of state, but not the head of government, the elected President was to have additional discretionary powers involving the spending of financial reserves, appointment of high-ranking public servants, and certain ministerial powers to detain without trial. In 2016, a constitutional commission was convened to consider further reforms to the office and the elections process. This book explores Singapore's presidency, assessing how well it has functioned, discussing the rationales for an elected presidency, and evaluating the constitutional commission's recommendations for reforms, including the need for minority representation in the office. In doing so, the book provides important reflections on how the constitutional reform process raises crucial questions about the rule of law and the practice of constitutionalism in Singapore.

South Asia has had a tumultuous and varied experience with constitutional democracy that predates the recent rise in populism (and its study) in established democracies. And yet, this region has remained largely ignored by constitutional studies and democracy scholars. This book addresses this gap and presents a contribution to the South Asia-centric literature on the topic of the stability and resilience of constitutional democracies. Chapters deal not only with relatively well known South Asian countries such as India, Bangladesh, Pakistan, and Sri Lanka, but also with countries often ignored by scholars, such as Bhutan, Nepal, Maldives, and Afghanistan. The contributions consider the design and functioning of an array of institutions and actors, including political parties, legislatures, the political executive, the bureaucracy, courts, fourth branch / guarantor institutions (such as electoral commissions), the people, and the military to examine their roles in strengthening or undermining constitutional democracy across South Asia. Each chapter offers a contextual and jurisdictionally-tethered account of the causes behind the erosion of constitutional democracy, and some examine the resilience of constitutional institutions against democratic erosion.

Research on comparative administrative law, in contrast to comparative constitutional law, remains largely underdeveloped. This book plugs that gap. It considers how a wide range of common law systems have received and adapted English common law to the needs of their own socio-political context. Readers will be given complex insights into a wide range of common law systems of administrative law, which they may not otherwise have access to given how difficult it would be to research all of the systems covered in the volume single-handedly. The book covers Scotland, Ireland, the USA, Canada, Israel, South Africa, Kenya, Malaysia, Singapore, Hong Kong SAR, India, Bangladesh, Australia and New Zealand. Comparative public lawyers will have a much greater range of common law models of administrative law - either to pursue conversations about their own common law system or to sophisticate their comparison of their system (civil law or otherwise) with common law systems.

Research on comparative administrative law, in contrast to comparative constitutional law, remains largely underdeveloped. This book plugs that gap. It considers how a wide range of common law systems have received and adapted English common law to the needs of their own socio-political context. Readers will be given complex insights into a wide range of common law systems of administrative law, which they may not otherwise have access to given how difficult it would be to research all of the systems covered in the volume single-handedly. The book covers Scotland, Ireland, the USA, Canada, Israel, South Africa, Kenya, Malaysia, Singapore, Hong Kong SAR, India, Bangladesh, Australia and New Zealand. Comparative public lawyers will have a much greater range of common law models of administrative law - either to pursue conversations about their own common law system or to sophisticate their comparison of their system (civil law or otherwise) with common law systems.