- Joined
- Jul 24, 2008
- Messages
- 33,627
- Points
- 0
[TABLE="width: 100%"]
<TBODY>[TR]
[TD]
<TBODY>
</TBODY>
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD][/TD]
[TD]63262.1</SPAN></SPAN> </SPAN>
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]SINGAPORE: The debate over when the Prime Minister should call a by-election in the vacant ward of Hougang has sparked a sharp exchange between Bishan-Toa Payoh GRC MP Hri Kumar and new Nominated MP Eugene Tan.
Over the last nine days, Mr Hri Kumar, a Senior Counsel, and Assistant Professor Tan, a law lecturer at the Singapore Management University, have written to Today trading legal arguments and personal views on the issue.
The exchange was triggered by a commentary by Asst Prof Tan published in this newspaper on Feb 20. This sparked a robust response from Mr Hri Kumar, which in turn drew a reply from Asst Prof Tan. The latest salvo was another reply on Tuesday from Mr Hri Kumar.
In his latest letter published in the newspaper's Voices Section on Wednesday, Mr Hri Kumar reiterated that when a General Election or a by-election is to be called is "entirely at the discretion of the Prime Minister. There is no obligation to call an immediate by-election."
Mr Hri Kumar added: "Contrary to what (Asst Prof Tan) wrote, Article 49 of the Constitution does not say that an election shall be 'called' to fill a vacant seat. It simply prescribes that the vacant seat '</SPAN>shall</SPAN> be filled by election'." </SPAN>(does Kumar understand what SHALL means? He should retake his O levels- don't know how he got his SC)</SPAN>
Asst Prof Tan had argued in a letter published on Feb 28 that the PM's "discretionary power vis-a-vis by-elections is not an unfettered one". He wrote: </SPAN>"The PM should explain if he decides against or delays for an extended period of time calling a by-election. This accords with accountability and transparency. It assures Singaporeans that his decision is not based on narrow party interests." (See the higher quality of the reasoning by a professor?)</SPAN>
THE COMMENTARY THAT TRIGGERED THE EXCHANGE
Asst Prof Tan had first called on the government to state its reasons, if it decides to delay or not to hold a by-election in Hougang, in his commentary published on Feb 20.
He wrote: "While the Prime Minister has the prerogative on the timing, I would argue that this does not extend to his having an unfettered discretion to delay the calling of a by-election indefinitely.
"In most instances, it has to be called within a reasonable time, or certainly without an inordinate delay. In short, the 'default' position should be that a by-election should be automatic, although there is no hard and fast rule on the timing."
Asst Prof Tan's commentary invited a robust response from Mr Hri Kumar a few days later, on Feb 24. Mr Hri Kumar argued there is "a reason the Singapore Constitution does not prescribe any time limit to call a by-election".
Mr Hri Kumar said: "Our parliamentary democracy is based on the principle that elections are fundamentally about voters choosing between different political parties to lead the country, rather than between individual candidates standing in a constituency. In general elections, the issue is which party should form the government."
He added: "Hence, under our system, if any Member of Parliament (MP) resigns or is expelled from his party, he loses his seat because voters had elected him as a representative of his party."</SPAN></SPAN>
In his latest letter, Mr Hri Kumar also pointed out that the Workers' Party had voted with the People's Action Party to defeat a motion in 2008 - proposed by two Nominated MPs - that suggested, among other things, mandated by-elections be called within three months from the date an MP vacates his seat. (</SPAN>Whether a by-election is called is in the court of this gahmen- WP didn't form the government and what WP stand is is really irrelevant. Is he a SC for real?)</SPAN></SPAN>
Mr Hri Kumar noted that the WP voted this way after its two MPs then - WP secretary-general Low Thia Khiang and party chair Sylvia Lim - had tried unsuccessfully to amend the motion to call for the Group Representation Constituency system to be abolished.</SPAN>
The WP's stance was also discussed on Tuesday on WP MP Pritam Singh's Facebook page, with some Facebook users questioning why the Opposition party voted against the motion. Mr Singh replied that WP did so because the motion "entrenches the GRC system, something the WP is fundamentally against".</SPAN>
Ms Lim had supported the proposal to have a three-month time-frame for by-elections, Mr Singh noted. Responding to a Facebook user, Mr Singh explained that MPs "can't agree with half a motion".</SPAN>
Eugene's take:</SPAN>
</SPAN>Eugene Tan: Hri Kumar's obfuscation shows PAP concerned about by-E results</SPAN>
IN HIS I Say piece "No automatic by-election in our model of parliamentary democracy" (Feb 24), Mr Hri Kumar Nair claims that my commentary "The value of a by-election" (Feb 20) ignores the law and reason for by-elections in Singapore.</SPAN>
In fact, Hri glosses over the applicable law and ignores the basis of our model of parliamentary democracy, which has evolved from the United Kingdom model.</SPAN>
Article 49 (1) of our Constitution provides that an election "shall" be called when an elected parliamentary seat is vacated. The Parliamentary Elections Act (PEA) provides for the same.</SPAN>
In both cases, the very use of "shall" (rather than "may") indicates, prima facie, the mandatory nature of a by-election.</SPAN>
It is correct that the Prime Minister has the prerogative on the timing, as the Constitution and PEA are silent on this point.</SPAN>
However, </SPAN>Section 52 of the Interpretation Act states: "Where no time is prescribed or allowed within which anything shall be done, that thing shall be done with all convenient speed and as often as the prescribed occasion arises."</SPAN>
The PM's discretionary power vis-a-vis by-elections is not an unfettered one. Our Court of Appeal, in its 1988 decision in Chng Suan Tze, stated that "the notion of a subjective or unfettered discretion is contrary to the rule of law" because "all power has legal limits".</SPAN>
The PM should explain if he decides against or delays for an extended period of time calling a by-election. This accords with accountability and transparency. It assures Singaporeans that his decision is not based on narrow party interests.</SPAN>
This is of fundamental importance. The right to vote is not a mere legal right but a constitutional right.</SPAN>
Mr Hri Kumar asserts that a Member of Parliament (MP) is not fundamental in our system of parliamentary democracy. That may well be his party's position.
For Singaporeans, however, election candidates matter as much as their party. Otherwise, why would the People's Action Party (PAP) emphasise the calibre of its electoral candidates if the PAP name is good enough?</SPAN>
The thrust of Mr Hri Kumar's arguments is that calling a by-election is an act of benevolence by the Government. It is a sad day for our parliamentary democracy if the cardinal principle of representation is denied without justification.</SPAN>
Covering MPs do not have a mandate from the Hougang voters.</SPAN>
The current Parliament has more than four years of its term left. Let the Hougang voters decide how they would hold the Workers' Party accountable. They would not begrudge this constitutional opportunity to elect a new representative.</SPAN>
Is our system of governance so precarious that a Hougang by-election, involving 25,000 voters, would result in instability and the Government having to put aside important national issues?</SPAN>
All said, Mr Hri Kumar's obfuscation suggests that the PAP is more concerned with the by-election's outcome than with enhancing our system of parliamentary democracy, giving effect to the constitutional right to vote and the rule of law.</SPAN></SPAN>
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]View Full Message</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN>
[/TD]
[/TR]
</TBODY>[/TABLE]
<TBODY>[TR]
[TD]
| From: </SPAN></SPAN> | fixncc</SPAN></SPAN> </SPAN> | Feb-28 6:47 pm </SPAN></SPAN> |
| To: </SPAN></SPAN> | ALL</SPAN> </SPAN> |
<TBODY>
</TBODY>
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD][/TD]
[TD]63262.1</SPAN></SPAN> </SPAN>
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]SINGAPORE: The debate over when the Prime Minister should call a by-election in the vacant ward of Hougang has sparked a sharp exchange between Bishan-Toa Payoh GRC MP Hri Kumar and new Nominated MP Eugene Tan.
Over the last nine days, Mr Hri Kumar, a Senior Counsel, and Assistant Professor Tan, a law lecturer at the Singapore Management University, have written to Today trading legal arguments and personal views on the issue.
The exchange was triggered by a commentary by Asst Prof Tan published in this newspaper on Feb 20. This sparked a robust response from Mr Hri Kumar, which in turn drew a reply from Asst Prof Tan. The latest salvo was another reply on Tuesday from Mr Hri Kumar.
In his latest letter published in the newspaper's Voices Section on Wednesday, Mr Hri Kumar reiterated that when a General Election or a by-election is to be called is "entirely at the discretion of the Prime Minister. There is no obligation to call an immediate by-election."
Mr Hri Kumar added: "Contrary to what (Asst Prof Tan) wrote, Article 49 of the Constitution does not say that an election shall be 'called' to fill a vacant seat. It simply prescribes that the vacant seat '</SPAN>shall</SPAN> be filled by election'." </SPAN>(does Kumar understand what SHALL means? He should retake his O levels- don't know how he got his SC)</SPAN>
Asst Prof Tan had argued in a letter published on Feb 28 that the PM's "discretionary power vis-a-vis by-elections is not an unfettered one". He wrote: </SPAN>"The PM should explain if he decides against or delays for an extended period of time calling a by-election. This accords with accountability and transparency. It assures Singaporeans that his decision is not based on narrow party interests." (See the higher quality of the reasoning by a professor?)</SPAN>
THE COMMENTARY THAT TRIGGERED THE EXCHANGE
Asst Prof Tan had first called on the government to state its reasons, if it decides to delay or not to hold a by-election in Hougang, in his commentary published on Feb 20.
He wrote: "While the Prime Minister has the prerogative on the timing, I would argue that this does not extend to his having an unfettered discretion to delay the calling of a by-election indefinitely.
"In most instances, it has to be called within a reasonable time, or certainly without an inordinate delay. In short, the 'default' position should be that a by-election should be automatic, although there is no hard and fast rule on the timing."
Asst Prof Tan's commentary invited a robust response from Mr Hri Kumar a few days later, on Feb 24. Mr Hri Kumar argued there is "a reason the Singapore Constitution does not prescribe any time limit to call a by-election".
Mr Hri Kumar said: "Our parliamentary democracy is based on the principle that elections are fundamentally about voters choosing between different political parties to lead the country, rather than between individual candidates standing in a constituency. In general elections, the issue is which party should form the government."
He added: "Hence, under our system, if any Member of Parliament (MP) resigns or is expelled from his party, he loses his seat because voters had elected him as a representative of his party."</SPAN></SPAN>
In his latest letter, Mr Hri Kumar also pointed out that the Workers' Party had voted with the People's Action Party to defeat a motion in 2008 - proposed by two Nominated MPs - that suggested, among other things, mandated by-elections be called within three months from the date an MP vacates his seat. (</SPAN>Whether a by-election is called is in the court of this gahmen- WP didn't form the government and what WP stand is is really irrelevant. Is he a SC for real?)</SPAN></SPAN>
Mr Hri Kumar noted that the WP voted this way after its two MPs then - WP secretary-general Low Thia Khiang and party chair Sylvia Lim - had tried unsuccessfully to amend the motion to call for the Group Representation Constituency system to be abolished.</SPAN>
The WP's stance was also discussed on Tuesday on WP MP Pritam Singh's Facebook page, with some Facebook users questioning why the Opposition party voted against the motion. Mr Singh replied that WP did so because the motion "entrenches the GRC system, something the WP is fundamentally against".</SPAN>
Ms Lim had supported the proposal to have a three-month time-frame for by-elections, Mr Singh noted. Responding to a Facebook user, Mr Singh explained that MPs "can't agree with half a motion".</SPAN>
Eugene's take:</SPAN>
IN HIS I Say piece "No automatic by-election in our model of parliamentary democracy" (Feb 24), Mr Hri Kumar Nair claims that my commentary "The value of a by-election" (Feb 20) ignores the law and reason for by-elections in Singapore.</SPAN>
In fact, Hri glosses over the applicable law and ignores the basis of our model of parliamentary democracy, which has evolved from the United Kingdom model.</SPAN>
Article 49 (1) of our Constitution provides that an election "shall" be called when an elected parliamentary seat is vacated. The Parliamentary Elections Act (PEA) provides for the same.</SPAN>
In both cases, the very use of "shall" (rather than "may") indicates, prima facie, the mandatory nature of a by-election.</SPAN>
It is correct that the Prime Minister has the prerogative on the timing, as the Constitution and PEA are silent on this point.</SPAN>
However, </SPAN>Section 52 of the Interpretation Act states: "Where no time is prescribed or allowed within which anything shall be done, that thing shall be done with all convenient speed and as often as the prescribed occasion arises."</SPAN>
The PM's discretionary power vis-a-vis by-elections is not an unfettered one. Our Court of Appeal, in its 1988 decision in Chng Suan Tze, stated that "the notion of a subjective or unfettered discretion is contrary to the rule of law" because "all power has legal limits".</SPAN>
The PM should explain if he decides against or delays for an extended period of time calling a by-election. This accords with accountability and transparency. It assures Singaporeans that his decision is not based on narrow party interests.</SPAN>
This is of fundamental importance. The right to vote is not a mere legal right but a constitutional right.</SPAN>
Mr Hri Kumar asserts that a Member of Parliament (MP) is not fundamental in our system of parliamentary democracy. That may well be his party's position.
For Singaporeans, however, election candidates matter as much as their party. Otherwise, why would the People's Action Party (PAP) emphasise the calibre of its electoral candidates if the PAP name is good enough?</SPAN>
The thrust of Mr Hri Kumar's arguments is that calling a by-election is an act of benevolence by the Government. It is a sad day for our parliamentary democracy if the cardinal principle of representation is denied without justification.</SPAN>
Covering MPs do not have a mandate from the Hougang voters.</SPAN>
The current Parliament has more than four years of its term left. Let the Hougang voters decide how they would hold the Workers' Party accountable. They would not begrudge this constitutional opportunity to elect a new representative.</SPAN>
Is our system of governance so precarious that a Hougang by-election, involving 25,000 voters, would result in instability and the Government having to put aside important national issues?</SPAN>
All said, Mr Hri Kumar's obfuscation suggests that the PAP is more concerned with the by-election's outcome than with enhancing our system of parliamentary democracy, giving effect to the constitutional right to vote and the rule of law.</SPAN></SPAN>
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]View Full Message</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN>
[/TD]
[/TR]
</TBODY>[/TABLE]
Last edited:
