<!-- Start K2 Item Layout --><!-- Plugins: BeforeDisplay --><!-- K2 Plugins: K2BeforeDisplay --><!-- Date created --> Friday, 05 July 2013 15:43 <!-- Item title -->[h=2]Calling by-elections - PM's discretion not unfettered, court rules[/h]
<!-- Plugins: AfterDisplayTitle --><!-- K2 Plugins: K2AfterDisplayTitle -->
<iframe style="width: 107px; height: 20px;" class="twitter-share-button twitter-count-horizontal" title="Twitter Tweet Button" src="http://platform.twitter.com/widgets/tweet_button.1372833608.html#_=1373015828715&count=horizontal&id=twitter-widget-0&lang=en&original_referer=http%3A%2F%2Fpublichouse.sg%2Fcategories%2Ftopstory%2Fitem%2F898-calling-by-elections-pms-discretion-not-unfettered-court-rules%3Ftmpl%3Dcomponent%26print%3D1&related=publichousesg%3Apublichouse.sg&size=m&text=Calling%20by-elections%20-%20PM's%20discretion%20not%20unfettered%2C%20court%20rules%20%7C%20publichouse.sg&url=http%3A%2F%2Fpublichouse.sg%2Fcategories%2Ftopstory%2Fitem%2F898-calling-by-elections-pms-discretion-not-unfettered-court-rules%3Ftmpl%3Dcomponent%26print%3D1" frameBorder="0" allowTransparency="true" scrolling="no" data-twttr-rendered="true"></iframe>
<!-- Item Image -->
<!-- Image caption -->Lawyer M Ravi with Mdm Vellama Marie Muthu
<!-- Item introtext -->The Court of Appeal on Friday, 5 July, laid down that the Prime Minister must call a by-election and that he does not have "unfettered discretion" in deciding when to call one when a parliamentary seat is vacated.
The 3 justices - Andrew Phang, Chao Hick Tin and VK Rajah - were giving the court's judgement in the appeal by Hougang resident, Mdm Vellama Marie Muthu. She had lodged an application with the courts earlier this year to have it declare that the Prime Minister does not have unfettered or unconditional discretion in whether or when he should call a by-election.
Her application was prompted by the sacking of the Member of Parliament for Hougang, Yaw Shin Leong, by the Workers' Party in February 2012.
<!-- Item fulltext -->In August last year, the High Court dismissed Vellama's case. Justice Philip Pillai, who presided over the case, ruled then that “there is no requirement” in law for the prime minister to call elections to fill parliamentary vacancies, and thus that there was also no prescribed time period for such to be filled.
"Under the Constitution, to call or not to call an election to fill an elected Member vacancy is a decision to be made by the Prime Minister," Justice Pillai said. "Should the Prime Minister decide to call an election to fill an elected Member vacancy, he has a discretion as to when to call it."
In December, following the vacating of the Punggol East seat by the People's Action Party MP and Speaker of Parliament, Michael Palmer, PM Lee issued a statement which said, among other things:
"The Constitution does not require me to call a by-election within any fixed timeframe. I will carefully consider whether to call a by-election in Punggol East and, if so, when."
The Court of Appeal on Friday, however, has decided that the Prime Minister, in fact, must call a by-election in such situations. The apex court granted that the Prime Minister "is entitled to take into account all relevant circumstances" when deciding when such a by-election is to take place.
"However, while we accept that the Prime Minister should be accorded a measure of latitude in deciding when to call for election to fill a vacancy," the court's judgement said, "it does not follow from this flexibility that he would, therefore, be entitled to defer the calling of an election to fill a vacancy indefinitely, or to simply declare that he would not be advising the President to issue a writ of election."
The court emphasised that "a Member [of Parliament] represents and is the voice of his constituents."
"If a vacancy is left unfilled for an unnecessarily prolonged period that would raise a serious risk of disenfranchising the residents of that constituency," the apex court said.
While the court dismissed Vellama's case on a technicality - that she in fact did not suffer any damage since the Prime Minister had already announced that he would call a by-election in Hougang where she lives and where the parliamentary seat had been vacated, and thus her case was "premature" - it nonetheless agreed with the thrust in Vellama's application, namely that the Prime Minister does not have unfettered discretion in whether or not he should call a by-election.
The Prime Minister, the court ruled, must in fact call for an election when a parliamentary seat is vacated.
-------------------
The following is a media release from M Ravi, lawyer for Vellama:
Singapore Court of Appeal Rules that By-Elections are not Optional
Singapore, July 5, 2013
Today, the Court of Appeal ruled that the Constitution of Singapore “Does not give the Prime Minister an unfettered discretion in the calling of an election to fill a casual vacancy of an elected MP. He must do so within a reasonable time”. In so doing, the Court has overturned an earlier High Court position that the Prime Minister had the authority to decide when and if a by-election should be held in the event of a Parliamentary vacancy.
Hougang resident Madam Vellama D/O Muthu brought this issue to the Court on 2 March 2012 with the contention that the right to Parliamentary representation is fundamental to citizens of a representative democracy. Today Justices Chao Hick Tin, Andrew Phang Boon Leong and V K Rajah confirmed this position, ruling that, “If a vacancy is left unfilled for an unnecessarily prolonged period that would give rise to a serious risk of disenfranchising the residents of that constituency.”
Mr M Ravi, Mdm Vellama’s lawyer, adds, “This may be the first time the Singapore Court have acted to interpret the Constitution in a way that has circumscribed the Prime Minister’s executive authority. It is a great day for democracy in Singapore. A year ago, who would have imagined that one Hougang citizen could take on such a challenge, in the interest of all citizens, and that it would result in the highest court affirming that Singaporeans do have a right to representation in Parliament.”
<!-- Begin: Paypal Donate -->
<!-- End: Paypal Donate -->
<!-- Begin: Amazon --><!-- End: Amazon -->
<!-- Plugins: AfterDisplayContent --><!-- K2 Plugins: K2AfterDisplayContent -->
<fb:like class="fb_edge_widget_with_comment fb_iframe_widget" fb-xfbml-state="rendered" href="http://publichouse.sg/categories/topstory/item/898-calling-by-elections-pms-discretion-not-unfettered-court-rules?tmpl=component&print=1"></fb:like>
<!-- K2 Plugins: K2UserDisplay -->
<!-- End K2 Item Layout --><!-- JoomlaWorks "K2" (v2.4.1) | Learn more about K2 at http://getk2.org -->
<!-- Plugins: AfterDisplayTitle --><!-- K2 Plugins: K2AfterDisplayTitle -->
- <!-- Item Author -->
<iframe style="width: 107px; height: 20px;" class="twitter-share-button twitter-count-horizontal" title="Twitter Tweet Button" src="http://platform.twitter.com/widgets/tweet_button.1372833608.html#_=1373015828715&count=horizontal&id=twitter-widget-0&lang=en&original_referer=http%3A%2F%2Fpublichouse.sg%2Fcategories%2Ftopstory%2Fitem%2F898-calling-by-elections-pms-discretion-not-unfettered-court-rules%3Ftmpl%3Dcomponent%26print%3D1&related=publichousesg%3Apublichouse.sg&size=m&text=Calling%20by-elections%20-%20PM's%20discretion%20not%20unfettered%2C%20court%20rules%20%7C%20publichouse.sg&url=http%3A%2F%2Fpublichouse.sg%2Fcategories%2Ftopstory%2Fitem%2F898-calling-by-elections-pms-discretion-not-unfettered-court-rules%3Ftmpl%3Dcomponent%26print%3D1" frameBorder="0" allowTransparency="true" scrolling="no" data-twttr-rendered="true"></iframe>
<!-- Item Image -->
<!-- Image caption -->Lawyer M Ravi with Mdm Vellama Marie Muthu<!-- Item introtext -->The Court of Appeal on Friday, 5 July, laid down that the Prime Minister must call a by-election and that he does not have "unfettered discretion" in deciding when to call one when a parliamentary seat is vacated.
The 3 justices - Andrew Phang, Chao Hick Tin and VK Rajah - were giving the court's judgement in the appeal by Hougang resident, Mdm Vellama Marie Muthu. She had lodged an application with the courts earlier this year to have it declare that the Prime Minister does not have unfettered or unconditional discretion in whether or when he should call a by-election.
Her application was prompted by the sacking of the Member of Parliament for Hougang, Yaw Shin Leong, by the Workers' Party in February 2012.
<!-- Item fulltext -->In August last year, the High Court dismissed Vellama's case. Justice Philip Pillai, who presided over the case, ruled then that “there is no requirement” in law for the prime minister to call elections to fill parliamentary vacancies, and thus that there was also no prescribed time period for such to be filled.
"Under the Constitution, to call or not to call an election to fill an elected Member vacancy is a decision to be made by the Prime Minister," Justice Pillai said. "Should the Prime Minister decide to call an election to fill an elected Member vacancy, he has a discretion as to when to call it."
In December, following the vacating of the Punggol East seat by the People's Action Party MP and Speaker of Parliament, Michael Palmer, PM Lee issued a statement which said, among other things:
"The Constitution does not require me to call a by-election within any fixed timeframe. I will carefully consider whether to call a by-election in Punggol East and, if so, when."
The Court of Appeal on Friday, however, has decided that the Prime Minister, in fact, must call a by-election in such situations. The apex court granted that the Prime Minister "is entitled to take into account all relevant circumstances" when deciding when such a by-election is to take place.
"However, while we accept that the Prime Minister should be accorded a measure of latitude in deciding when to call for election to fill a vacancy," the court's judgement said, "it does not follow from this flexibility that he would, therefore, be entitled to defer the calling of an election to fill a vacancy indefinitely, or to simply declare that he would not be advising the President to issue a writ of election."
The court emphasised that "a Member [of Parliament] represents and is the voice of his constituents."
"If a vacancy is left unfilled for an unnecessarily prolonged period that would raise a serious risk of disenfranchising the residents of that constituency," the apex court said.
While the court dismissed Vellama's case on a technicality - that she in fact did not suffer any damage since the Prime Minister had already announced that he would call a by-election in Hougang where she lives and where the parliamentary seat had been vacated, and thus her case was "premature" - it nonetheless agreed with the thrust in Vellama's application, namely that the Prime Minister does not have unfettered discretion in whether or not he should call a by-election.
The Prime Minister, the court ruled, must in fact call for an election when a parliamentary seat is vacated.
-------------------
The following is a media release from M Ravi, lawyer for Vellama:
Singapore Court of Appeal Rules that By-Elections are not Optional
Singapore, July 5, 2013
Today, the Court of Appeal ruled that the Constitution of Singapore “Does not give the Prime Minister an unfettered discretion in the calling of an election to fill a casual vacancy of an elected MP. He must do so within a reasonable time”. In so doing, the Court has overturned an earlier High Court position that the Prime Minister had the authority to decide when and if a by-election should be held in the event of a Parliamentary vacancy.
Hougang resident Madam Vellama D/O Muthu brought this issue to the Court on 2 March 2012 with the contention that the right to Parliamentary representation is fundamental to citizens of a representative democracy. Today Justices Chao Hick Tin, Andrew Phang Boon Leong and V K Rajah confirmed this position, ruling that, “If a vacancy is left unfilled for an unnecessarily prolonged period that would give rise to a serious risk of disenfranchising the residents of that constituency.”
Mr M Ravi, Mdm Vellama’s lawyer, adds, “This may be the first time the Singapore Court have acted to interpret the Constitution in a way that has circumscribed the Prime Minister’s executive authority. It is a great day for democracy in Singapore. A year ago, who would have imagined that one Hougang citizen could take on such a challenge, in the interest of all citizens, and that it would result in the highest court affirming that Singaporeans do have a right to representation in Parliament.”
<!-- Begin: Paypal Donate -->
<!-- End: Paypal Donate -->
<!-- Begin: Amazon --><!-- End: Amazon -->
<!-- Plugins: AfterDisplayContent --><!-- K2 Plugins: K2AfterDisplayContent -->
<fb:like class="fb_edge_widget_with_comment fb_iframe_widget" fb-xfbml-state="rendered" href="http://publichouse.sg/categories/topstory/item/898-calling-by-elections-pms-discretion-not-unfettered-court-rules?tmpl=component&print=1"></fb:like>
<!-- K2 Plugins: K2UserDisplay -->
<!-- End K2 Item Layout --><!-- JoomlaWorks "K2" (v2.4.1) | Learn more about K2 at http://getk2.org -->
