Re: Fact: Low Thia Kiang voted against having a time limit on when to hold a By-Elect
Sometimes it is really hilarious to discuss things with WP apologists.
We are talking about democratic principles and here we have people talking about party's discretion and convenience. Rule of Law isn't build upon unlimited power by discretion; that would be Rule by Law. You can have one thousand and one reasons not to call for by-elections, most likely due to each political party's consideration of self interests but the spirit of democratic representation must be upheld. Not you suka suka want by-election then ask someone to resign (1992 by-election). If your party has one MP who is sabo king and resign in a GRC, so be it. Your party chose him/her to be candidate and then become MP. That's your own party's problem.
If your MP die prematurely, so be it. That's your party's business as well, just too unlucky to have someone who died early. Doesn't mean that we should allow parties and politicians to bend the rules to suit their own agenda and party interests.
Read the following reports:
Representation is a cardinal principle in our democracy, too
Letter from Eugene Tan Kheng Boon Assistant Professor of Law, Singapore Management University School of Law, Nominated Member of Parliament 04:46 AM Feb 28, 2012
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, he 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.
Constitution demands a by-election in Hougang: experts
By Jeanette Tan | SingaporeScene – 5 hours ago
Email
Print
Constitutional law experts here say that a by-election should be held in Hougang SMC, even by the terms of our Constitution. (Yahoo! file photo)
Singapore's constitution does require that a by-election be held in Hougang as the seat for the single member constituency has become vacant, constitutional law experts said Tuesday.
Constitutional law professor Thio Li-ann and adjunct law professor Kevin Tan, both of whom lecture at the National University of Singapore, spoke in agreement with Nominated Member of Parliament (NMP) Eugene Tan, who asserted on Tuesday that the law in fact mandates a by-election for Hougang SMC, and that Prime Minister (PM) Lee Hsien Loong's discretionary power with respect to calling for one is "not an unfettered one".
In a letter published in the Today newspaper on Tuesday, Tan rebutted the points raised by MP for Bishan-Toa Payoh group representation constituency (GRC) Hri Kumar Nair in a separate note published in the same paper on Friday that there was "no requirement" for a by-election to be called immediately for Hougang SMC.
The seat for the Hougang SMC was declared vacant on Tuesday, as expected, after former MP Yaw Shin Leong said he would not challenge or appeal his expulsion earlier this month from the Workers' Party, which said the move was made because Yaw failed to explain allegations concerning his private affairs.
When contacted by Yahoo! Singapore, Thio said that Hri Kumar was basically reiterating PM Lee's standpoint, which she added represents "a political understanding of a legal system".
"While legally, the PM has the power to call a by-election or not, I find persuasive the argument that this discretion is not unfettered," she said.
"It (the by-election) should be done in a timely fashion with an eye to constitutionally-recognised principle of representative democracy, i.e. that every constituency should have a representative, rather than someone who can 'cover' a MP's duties but lacks legitimacy as the duly elected MP," she continued.
Thio also argued that when an SMC is left without a representative, it is less convincing than in the case of a GRC to say that his or her party will cover his or her duties, because the person or people covering for the displaced MP may not have been elected to do so. She also pointed out that this situation becomes worse should the MP in question be the sole MP from his party or an independent MP without a party.
"As a matter of prudence, so early in a parliamentary session, Parliament should have a full complement of MPs, and it is my view that a by-election should be called so that the people of Hougang can exercise their constitutional right to vote, and to be represented in Parliament by their representative, (whichever party he or she is from)," said Thio.
Adjunct professor Kevin Tan responded with his agreement quite simply, saying, "In brief, Eugene (Tan) is right and Hri (Kumar) is wrong. Eugene's latest letter states the law as it stands and must be regarded as the proper interpretation of the situation."
Former attorney-general Walter Woon believed the ruling party government's intention is to avoid being held to a timeline to call for a by-election.
Responding to queries from Yahoo! Singapore, he made reference to a statement made by former PM Lee Kuan Yew in Parliament at the end of 1965 that "there was no such injunction of holding a by-election within three months in our previous Constitution (before Singapore merged with Malaya in 1963)… Since we are no longer a part of the Federal whole, for reasons which we find valuable as a result of our own experience of elections and of government in Singapore, we have decided that this limitation should no longer apply."
"So legally, there is no such obligation (for a by-election to be held within a specific time-frame). The decision to do so is entirely political," said Woon.
"Will the voters feel that they have not been treated fairly if no by-election is called? That is the question," he added.
In his letter to Today, Tan referred to Article 49 (1) of Singapore's constitution, which states that an election "shall" be called when an elected parliamentary seat is vacated, as, he noted, does the parliamentary elections act.
"In both cases, the very use of 'shall' (rather than 'may') indicates, prima facie, the mandatory nature of a by-election," wrote Tan.
He acknowledged that PM Lee does have the right to exercise his own discretion on the timing of the by-election, but pointed out that 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."
On this, and noting also a 1988 Court of Appeal decision that said "the notion of a subjective or unfettered discretion is contrary to the rule of law", because "all power has legal limits", Tan concluded that the PM's powers on timing of the by-election are not without restraint.
He argued that PM Lee should explain if he chooses not to hold a by-election or delay calling for one for an extended period.
"This accords with accountability and transparency. It assures Singaporeans that his decision is not based on narrow party interests," he wrote. "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."
