- Joined
- Dec 30, 2010
- Messages
- 12,730
- Points
- 113
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.
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.
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.
In both cases, the very use of "shall" (rather than "may") indicates, prima facie, the mandatory nature of a by-election.
It is correct that the Prime Minister has the prerogative on the timing, as the Constitution and PEA are silent on this point.
However, 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."
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".
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.
This is of fundamental importance. The right to vote is not a mere legal right but a constitutional right.
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?
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.
Covering MPs do not have a mandate from the Hougang voters.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
In both cases, the very use of "shall" (rather than "may") indicates, prima facie, the mandatory nature of a by-election.
It is correct that the Prime Minister has the prerogative on the timing, as the Constitution and PEA are silent on this point.
However, 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."
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".
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.
This is of fundamental importance. The right to vote is not a mere legal right but a constitutional right.
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?
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.
Covering MPs do not have a mandate from the Hougang voters.
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.
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?
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.
:o 
Farkin Hell, they look quite similiar.. Are these PAP Ah Nehs long lost brothers..??? 
