Jump to content

No automatic by-election in Singapore model of parliamentary


CKP
 Share

Recommended Posts

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.

 

Hri_Kumar-278x300.jpg

 

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?

 

[cool]

↡ Advertisement
Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Hypersonic

Problem is, does it have a time frame??

 

No. That is still the PM's discretion <_<

Link to post
Share on other sites

Supercharged

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

(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 by Watwheels
Link to post
Share on other sites

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. :D

Link to post
Share on other sites

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

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...