Judge explains decision on Hougang by-election case

[alantan27]

Judge explains decision on Hougang by-election case

Published on Apr 10, 2012

*
*



53Share


2
inShare

Purchase this article for republication

Buy SPH photos


Housing & Development Board (HDB) flats at Hougang Avenue 3. Justice Philip Pillai has explained in writing his decision to hear a Hougang resident's bid to order the Prime Minister to hold a by-election within three months. -- ST PHOTO: DESMOND FOO
By Andrea Ong

Justice Philip Pillai has explained in writing his decision to hear a Hougang resident's bid to order the Prime Minister to hold a by-election within three months.

In his written grounds of decision dated April 9, Justice Pillai said he granted leave for Madam Vellama Marie Muthu's application to be heard in open court as he was 'of the view that the very low threshold for leave has been met'.

He said he made his decision without making any comment or decision on the merits and legal issues raised by the submissions from Madam Vellama's lawyer M Ravi and the Attorney-General's Chambers (AGC). The AGC is represented by Chief Counsel David Chong and Senior State Counsel Hema Subramanian.

Madam Vellama, 42, a part-time cleaner, had filed an application on March 2 to get the court to declare that the Prime Minister does not have 'unfettered discretion' in deciding whether and when to call a by-election. She also asked the court to issue a mandatory order for him to do so within three months or a 'reasonable time


Does it Mean hearing will proceed on 16 Apr 12?

 

[cunnilaubu]

Does it Mean hearing will proceed on 16 Apr 12?

No, it means AG can now appeal against his decision based on the ground he gave.

 

[Kinana]

Relaks my friends. There will be a BE by this year.

 

[Bigfuck]

Blah

You can't reason and debate, please don't get involved.

 

[NoNewsGood]

No, it means AG can now appeal against his decision based on the ground he gave.

The AG is being ridiculous here.

The judge has only given permission that the Hougang's resident's application be HEARD in open court, not as if he has given an order for the BE to be held.

Whatever the AG wants to argue ("unconsitutional", "misconceived", etc), that should be made at the open court HEARING. It is at this open court HEARING that the judge can HEAR arguments from both sides and then decide what order to make.

 

[Kinana]

The procedure is correct. The writ has already been issued and the defence does have the right to counter the validity of the case before it actually goes to any court. It is the same for any lawsuit. If the case has any room for moot, it will procede to court, if not, the case will be rejected or dismissed.

Why is it there are so many people who do not know anything but jump and cry foul on such legal procedures?

 

[Bigfuck]

The procedure is correct.

Why is it correct? Which chapter and section of the law says so? Do you know legal procedures? Are you better than practicing lawyers? Were you ever admitted to the bar? Did you study law? Did you study constitutional law? Which case precedent are you referring to? Is there only one case precedent to refer to ? Are you sure no one who replies to this threat is ignorant of the law and is not a law expert here? What do you mean by moot in this case? Is the word moot even applicable? Are you saying that Adjunct professor Kevin Tan, who also teaches constitutional law at NUS is wrong? Do you know that Prof Kevin Tan is an expert in constitutional law and local and foreign students read his textbooks and refer to his interpretation for advice? Are you smarter than Prof Kevin Tan?

 

[Kinana]

Kevin Tan is correct. Leave of court has to be granted first, before a judicial review is heard on its substantive merits so as to sift out frivolous cases.
What beef do you have against Kevin Tan?

 

[breaknews]

Useless ah Loong, got by election say lah, dun have say Loh!

Why so wishy washy dilly dally like ah kua for what?

 

[Bigfuck]

Kevin Tan is correct. Leave of court has to be granted first, before a judicial review is heard on its substantive merits so as to sift out frivolous cases.
What beef do you have against Kevin Tan?

What is your beef with Prof Kevin Tan? You cannot even respect our constitution law expert by according him the proper salutation. Did you not read his astute logical point that "You therefore cannot have a Parliament made up of people who were not elected… neither should you have a Parliament bereft of MPs." What is your point of making no point at SB?

 

[Kinana]

When and where did he say that and what is the context?
Why didn't LTK oppose unelected MPs then? LTK don't know the constitution?

 

[Bigfuck]

When and where did he say that and what is the context?
Why didn't LTK oppose unelected MPs then? LTK don't know the constitution?

Do you not read the newspapers? Do you not know such information in public domain? The question here is not about LTK or WP. The question here is whether constitution law is upheld accurately in Singapore for posterity as legal precedence set wrongly will jeopardize the construct of the constitutional law in Singapore mortally, to the extent, there can be
said to be no consistency in the application of the law and thus it can stretched to say there is no law except law of the jungle. It does not matter who runs for election and win in Hougang. LTK and the PM are not constitutional experts. So what is your point? How do you not know what Prof Kevin Tan said? Do you respect our constitutional law experts in Singapore?

 

[Kinana]

No source to back up your claim?

 

[Bigfuck]

No source to back up your claim?

Where is your source to start with? Do you know how to use google? Do you have excess to the Straits Times? Do you know what you are talking about? Do you even know law?

 

[Reflection]

Where is your source to start with? Do you know how to use google? Do you have excess to the Straits Times? Do you know what you are talking about? Do you even know law?

You are arguing with a wall...really...the wall is called KANINA