CKP 3rd Gear February 25, 2012 Share February 25, 2012 No automatic by-election in our model of parliamentary democracy by Hri Kumar Nair 04:46 AM Feb 24, 2012 Assistant Professor Eugene Tan's commentary "The value of a by-election" (Feb 20) argued that the Prime Minister does not have an unfettered discretion in deciding when to call a by-election and that the "default" position should be that a by-election should be automatic. Those two claims ignore the law and the reason behind the law. There is a reason the Singapore Constitution does not prescribe any time limit to call a by-election. Our parliamentary democracy is based on the principle that elections are fundamentally about voters choosing between different political parties to lead the country, rather than between individual candidates standing in a constituency. In general elections, the issue is which party should form the government. Hence, under our system, if any Member of Parliament (MP) resigns or is expelled from his party, he loses his seat because voters had elected him as a representative of his party. Therefore, when a seat falls vacant, there is no requirement to call an immediate by-election, unless the vacancy affects the Government's mandate. Nor should an MP's resignation or expulsion force the Government to put aside more important national issues to focus on a by-election. This model enables the Government to focus on governing Singapore well and improving the lives of Singaporeans. It has resulted in stability and progress for Singapore for half a century. It has another salutary effect: It holds political parties accountable to voters for the performance of their candidates. Parties must endeavour to field candidates who can last the term as MP. This calls for rigorous selection to ensure that men and women of integrity are fielded and, when elected, will do their utmost to fulfil their MP responsibilities for their entire term. If they do not or cannot, the onus is on their party to take care of residents in that constituency. The Workers' Party (WP) knows this. That is why their MPs have taken over Mr Yaw Shin Leong's duties in Hougang. In contrast, some other parliamentary democracies operate on a different philosophy: The individual MP has more power than the party. There, MPs can change parties within the parliamentary term and keep their seats, even cause governments to fall as a consequence, without the voters having any say in the matter. Because the MP is the fundamental element of their system, by-elections must be held promptly when seats fall vacant. The United Kingdom is such an example. The WP could force Mr Yaw to vacate his Hougang seat by expelling him from the party, only because it is operating under the Singapore model. The WP could not have done this under the UK model, as Mr Yaw would have remained MP for Hougang even after his expulsion, and there would have been no by-election. To call for an automatic by-election now that the Hougang seat is vacant, as Asst Prof Tan did, is to confuse the Singapore and UK models. The writer is a Senior Counsel and an MP for Bishan-Toa Payoh GRC. http://www.todayonline.com/Voices/EDC12022...ntary-democracy Any constitution experts here can back up his assertions? ↡ Advertisement Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Altivo 3rd Gear July 5, 2013 Share July 5, 2013 Just hot off the press today http://www.straitstimes.com/breaking-news/...court-appeal-20 Prime Minister must call an election to fill a seat vacated by MP: Court of Appeal The Court of Appeal has ruled that the Prime Minister must call an election to fill a seat vacated by an elected Member of Parliament, overturning a previous decision by a High Court judge that the PM has the discretion to decide whether or not to call an election. The decision brings to an end a long-running court case which has sparked much discussion since Hougang resident Vellama Marie Muthu applied for the High Court to rule on the issue in March last year after former Hougang MP Yaw Shin Leong vacated his seat. Last August, Justice Philip Pillai dismissed Madam Vellama's bid after noting that the case turned upon the meaning of one word in Article 49 of the Constitution, which says a vacancy "shall be filled by election". Madam Vellama's lawyer M. Ravi had argued that the word "election" meant an election had to be held, while the Attorney-General's Chambers said "election" described the process of how a vacancy is to be filled. The judge stood with the latter interpretation. Madam Vellama, a cleaner, had appealed against Justice Pillai's ruling. But after reserving judgement in January this year, the Court of Appeal said in its written judgement on Friday that the key lay in the word "shall" rather than "election". "Shall" indicates the act is mandatory, said the apex court, repeating an argument that Mr Ravi had earlier made. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joseph22 Turbocharged July 5, 2013 Share July 5, 2013 Problem is, does it have a time frame?? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vid Hypersonic July 5, 2013 Share July 5, 2013 Problem is, does it have a time frame?? No. That is still the PM's discretion Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
TVT Supercharged July 5, 2013 Share July 5, 2013 What about in the case of a GRC? If one of the MP resign, or dies, there should be a by-election also. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mustank Hypersonic July 5, 2013 Share July 5, 2013 Edmw people reaction very funny very different from mcf http://forums.hardwarezone.com.sg/eat-drin...al-4285689.html Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toothiewabbit Supersonic July 5, 2013 Share July 5, 2013 Pruss wan for the cleaner lady! Auntie Power!! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darthrevan Supercharged July 5, 2013 Share July 5, 2013 M.Ravi's David versus Goliath strategy paid off Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Watwheels Supersonic July 5, 2013 Share July 5, 2013 (edited) I feel that law should stay out of politics. The decision to have by-election or not should be done by voting within the parliament and not by one person such as the PM making that decision. Once the law is not involved in politics, accusations will be accusations, claims will be claims, there will be no arrest or sue until ppl bankrupt. This will level the playing field. But that's just an ideal system. Given there are a significant difference in balance of members in the ruling party vs the opposition party. Obviously ours still got some way to go. Edited July 5, 2013 by Watwheels Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mustank Hypersonic July 5, 2013 Share July 5, 2013 Long time no scandal Liao [laugh] Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Voodooman Supersonic July 5, 2013 Share July 5, 2013 I feel that law should stay out of politics. The decision to have by-election or not should be done by voting within the parliament and not by one person such as the PM making that decision. Once the law is not involved in politics, accusations will be accusations, claims will be claims, there will be no arrest or sue until ppl bankrupt. This will level the playing field. But that's just an ideal system. Given there are a significant difference in balance of members in the ruling party vs the opposition party. Obviously ours still got some way to go. The law is drafted and passed by parliament, some new, some old. It can be interpreted widely by the govt of the day, a court is supposed to provide an independent view and enforces the real intent behind the legislation. PAP can change the law anytime they want as they have 2/3 majority, so you still have your ideal system of "voting by MP" to decide the law. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Djim 1st Gear July 5, 2013 Share July 5, 2013 I feel that law should stay out of politics. The decision to have by-election or not should be done by voting within the parliament and not by one person such as the PM making that decision. Once the law is not involved in politics, accusations will be accusations, claims will be claims, there will be no arrest or sue until ppl bankrupt. This will level the playing field. But that's just an ideal system. Given there are a significant difference in balance of members in the ruling party vs the opposition party. Obviously ours still got some way to go. sorry decision base on interpretation of constitution ↡ Advertisement Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In NowRelated Discussions
Related Discussions
Crazy weather in Singapore ?
Crazy weather in Singapore ?
SIM Only Mobile Plans Discussion
SIM Only Mobile Plans Discussion
Greater Southern Waterfront discussion
Greater Southern Waterfront discussion
Singapore Property Scene Discussion
Singapore Property Scene Discussion
OFFICIAL: Tesla Singapore Discussion
OFFICIAL: Tesla Singapore Discussion
Marathons in Singapore
Marathons in Singapore
Sg Election 2025!
Sg Election 2025!
S’pore May Use Nuclear Energy By 2050, Cites Improvements In Safety & Reliability
S’pore May Use Nuclear Energy By 2050, Cites Improvements In Safety & Reliability