Hougang election in April

[ChaoPappyPoodle]

Parliamentary Elections Act read with reference to the Constitution. Sorry I can't remember the specific Section and Article No. To summarize, PM has the power to call BE anytime whether the seat is vacated or not. His only restriction is the end of his term, i.e. when next GE is due. LKY exercised this power after JBJ was disqualified in 1986 and the Anson seat vacated. PM can also call GE earlier than due to end his own current term and seek a renewed term earlier. GCT exercised this power in GE 1991 to seek an early mandate and BE 1992 to induct TCH and on pretext of giving JBJ a comeback chance. There're many lawyers in the opposition. All never challenged this constitutional power. All they could do was to seek popular support if they want a BE and keep political pressure on PM to call BE. If this drags on, the next GE looms, see?

All constitutional articles and statute laws are subject to interpretation of course, that's why we have judges and lawyers. I understand PM Lee is now under political pressure but reluctant to call BE and have submitted the matter to the court. Let's hear what the court says next. It may take months, even years.

In an earlier post of yours, you said, "If you read the statutes, the government can delay it to the next GE if they want.". I now ask you again which statutes are you alluding to. Your stipulation would make one think that you, yourself would already have read the statutes and that you are asking others to read them as well.

So, I ask you again, which statutes are you alluding to. Next time, before asking others to read it, you can provide them with the required information. Not only have you failed to do so but it seems that you yourself now seem oblivious to what you had asked others to read.

And then, to paramount your dereliction, you failed to answer, to obfuscate my question on how it is that the law, as you acknowledge it to be, allows for a delay in a BE such that a BE is not required. This assertion was put to you clearly in my last post. I repeat, if it is, as you say, that the PM can delay a BE until the next GE, then it is truthful to say, because effectively it becomes, that the PM then does not have to call a BE. All he has to do is to wait until the next GE.

What has happened previously need not have precedence today. Your assertion that there were opposition MPs in parliament and that they agreed to the case for not calling a by-election is false and even laughable.

The PM's constitutional power cannot override the constitution power of the people. This is a given in any democracy. What LKY did then has no bearing on what is legal or otherwise. LKY used to be a criminal when he sold illegal items, as he has confessed. LKY used to obtain huge discounts from property purchases that costs the country huge resources to set right. In short, what LKY did or did not do should not be legally binding today.

The fact that laws are to interpreted brings us back to my question with respect to your assertion that the PM does not have to call for a BE.

In fact, the PM has today accepted that a BE has to be called. I am hopeful that he is not like you in interpreting the laws, such that he is allowed to delay, or call of a by-election after the next GE!!! Further, when constitutional laws are in placed into question, it is the case that the laws were insufficiently written to their intended extent. Constitutional laws are written, to stand the test of time so as to defer unnecessary queries and grand-standing. The fact that such an important issue as a BE should be in contention shows the disrespect that the PAP has towards the constitutional rights of its citizens to have elected representatives in parliament.

Pinky Lee is now using the legal case by a Hougang citizen to stifle parliamentary debate on the matter. We, however, know that the judiciary is independent of the executive. As such, it is false that parliament cannot or should not debate on the matter. It seems that the PM has unknowingly put into question, the integrity and independence of the judiciary.

But back to your assertion that the Pinky boy can delay a BE until the next GE. Let's have your beloved statutes.

 

[Ramseth]

In any case, I've always made it clear that I'm not a lawyer, much less a constitutional lawyer. I got my interpretation from case precedents and what transpired in Parliament recently. You can have your own interpretation. In any case, even LHL is unsure about it and has submitted it to court.

 

[Debonerman]

It just won't stick. Haiyah!