By Ghui –

I read about the High Court ruling against the application of Hougang resident Vellama Marie Muthu for a declaration that the Prime Minister does not have "unfettered discretion" in determining when to hold by-elections with some consternation.  I am certainly no expert on Constitutional law but it would appear to me that the reasoning behind that decision was based more on semantics and word play than an actual analysis on the intention behind the Constitution.

The ruling would also appear to be in contrast to some experts' earlier views. Constitutional law professors whom Yahoo! Singapore previously spoke with agreed that interpretation of the phrase "shall be filled by election" necessarily indicates the mandatory nature of a by-election, in the event that a seat is vacated.

In the article entitled "High Court dismisses Hougang by-election case", Justice Pillai's ruling is explained as follows:

"Elaborating on his ruling, Pillai explained that the term "election" in Article 49 (1) in Part VI of Singapore's constitution carries two possible interpretations.

In the first, it could refer to an event, making the holding of a by-election mandatory. In the second, it could refer to the process of election, indicating only that the way in which the process of filling a vacated seat in parliament is by election.

The latter interpretation does not suggest that the Prime Minister must call for a by-election, wrote Pillai, who concluded from further reading of the rest of Part VI that it is this second meaning that should be taken.

Given this, Pillai ruled that the Parliamentary Elections Act "merely provides the mechanism to hold such an election (the by-election) should the Prime Minister decide to call one", instead of determining whether or not one should be held, much less when."
 

Article 49(1) of the Constitution clearly states that if a seat has become vacant for any reason other than dissolution of Parliament, the vacancy shall be filled by election.

As a lay person reading these provisions, it would be logical to assume that the word “election” would take on the meaning best understood by the average man on the street – i.e. that an election be called! It seems superfluous to then delve into a buried second meaning by seeking to define “election” as “the process of election”.

I appreciate that there may be legal nuances that I do not understand but surely the Constitution which enshrines the basic rights of all Singaporeans should be free from such complications as far as possible? Besides, where there is room for uncertainty, should we not be opting for the simpler and more straightforward solution so as not to muddy the waters further?

The constitution is a document that is of utmost importance to Singaporeans. I cannot stress this enough. As such, it is imperative that it is made “as easy to understand” as possible. 

The results of an election are what give a government its legitimacy. Following this line of reasoning, if a seat in Parliament falls empty, surely it is an act of common sense that voters are permitted to vote for a new MP? After all, our MPs represent us and our interests in Parliament. Should we not have a right to choose who we want since the person we originally chose is no longer able to represent us? Why is there even a need to limit this right?

Singapore is a functioning democracy. The right to choose our government and how that process plays out should therefore be sacrosanct. The best way to protect this right would be to ensure that its application be uncomplicated. With all due respect to Justice Pillai, this ruling appears to encourage us to “read between the lines” as opposed to reading the Constitution “as is”.

Or perhaps there is a simpler solution to all of this. Article 46(2)(b) of the Constitution stipulates that an MP’s Parliamentary seat falls vacant if the MP is expelled from the party under whose banner he or she stood for election. Perhaps if an MP is permitted to retain his or her seat as an independent despite expulsion would solve this dicey problem altogether. This is certainly the case in many commonwealth countries such as the United Kingdom and Ireland.

I can only speak for the common man trying to make sense of this legal mumbo jumbo while at the same time trying to assert his rights in a democratic nation. I leave it up to legal minds, far finer than mine to determine the process. But surely, the answer lies in simplicity?

You May Also Like

雇年长员工、调高退休年龄 企业可获最高25万元津贴

企業调高退休和重新雇佣年龄,或聘雇兼职年长员工,可获得高达12万至25万元的津贴。 人力部长杨莉明在国会辩论部门开支预算时表示,年长员工向当局反馈,若接近退休年龄时,希望能够减少工作量,或被公司重新雇佣为兼职,会更愿意留在职场上。 但仍有雇主对此反应,一些业务安排为兼职可能会面临挑战,因此,当局也推出兼职重新雇佣津贴(Part-Time Re-employment Grant ),即企业若重新雇佣年长员工,将可获得高达12万5千元的津贴。 此外,若企业再2022年7月前,预先调高退休和重新雇佣年龄,亦将可获得高达25万元(Senior Worker Early Adopter Grant)的津贴。 另一方面,当局也将在未来三年,以年长员工补贴配套 (Senior…

【选举】民主进步党 (DPP) 宣布不角逐选举

新加坡民主进步党 (DPP)宣布不会参加来届大选。 民主进步党秘书长哈敏(Mohamad Hamim Aliyas)今日(27日)(27日)在麦波申熟食中心举办新闻发布会,表明为了避免三角战,民主进步党将不会参选。 此前,民主进步党宣布将分别竞选碧山-大巴窑集选区( Bishan-Toa Payoh GRC)、玛丽蒙单选区(Marymount SMC)和哥本峇鲁单选区(Kebun Baru SMC)。 惟昨日(26日)前进党也正式宣布,将派将攻打玛丽蒙和哥本峇鲁。至于人民党则有意攻打碧山-大巴窑集选区。 本月21日,民主进步党还曾到玛丽蒙选区走访,在顺福巴刹与前进党准候选人洪永元医生合摄。后者将上阵该选区。…

网友发现小狗栓屋外疑遭虐 兽医协会:误会一场

网民发现有小狗被栓在屋外,且放置饮用水的小碗也很肮脏,因此怀疑有人虐待小家伙,但是经过当局调查后表示,小狗并没有长期被拴在屋外,当时只是因为狗狗出现腹泻情况,所以才被主人拴在外头一会儿。 署名Pauline Teo的网友于周三(4日)在脸书上帖文,表示在荷兰村一公寓处发现一只小狗狗,被短绳拴在屋外,且旁边还有盛着水的肮脏小碗。 她表示,她发现小狗似乎被拴在屋外有两个小时了,而在下午4时许,就有一名女佣来将小狗待会单位内。“我相信她只是带回去一下,因为她发现我在看着。” 她当时就怀疑,狗主将该小狗长期栓在屋外。而根据帖文中的照片,小狗狗似乎有脱毛的现象。 她也表示,发现该屋内中还有一只“体型更小、更可爱且毛茸茸”的白色狗狗。 有关贴文立刻引起网民注意,大部分网民都很可怜小狗狗,要求网友向当局举报,严格禁止动物虐待。但是,也有网民认为要查清楚状况后,才能下定论。 而在当天晚上,Pauline再次更新其贴文,表示已经获得动物与兽医协会(AVS)的答复,该小狗并没有受到虐待。 该协会指出,已经派人到相关单位调查,发现单位屋内有两只小狗,都自由走动,而且看起来精神良好。 当局表示已经和狗主沟通,确定狗狗并没有被长时间栓在屋外。 而爱狗组织Chained Dog…

PSP encourages the public to partake in survey on rebalancing labour situation in S’pore

The Progress Singapore Party (PSP) invites the people in Singapore to take…