By election Laws, the spirit and intent of the law

Since the last interpretation of the spirit of the law in the Hougang by election, the govt’s position is that a general election is to elect a govt. When such a govt is in place and when a MP’s seat is left vacant for some reasons, it really does not matter as the govt is already elected. So having a by election or no by election is not of much importance as long as someone else is looking after the constituency on behalf of the MP. A stand in, a MP on loan from another constituency, or in the same GRC, or a CCC Chairman or any appointee could really fill the seat legally in accordance with the provisions of the Election Laws. This is what I have heard to be the official position and I stand corrected. The govt can always correct me if I am wrong and educate us on the correct interpretation, the law, the spirit of the law, the intent of the law, or the convenience of the law to be interpreted to whoever’s advantage.

If the above premises are true, and if the judgement by Judge Pillay is the absolute truth, that the PM has full discretion to decide to hold or not to hold a by election, then the constituents of any single member constituency may not be served by an elected MP after a GE. Anyone or any appointee would do.

I choose to disagree as a citizen and as a constituent. And I would also like to interpret the spirit of the law, the intent of the law to my advantage. As a constituent, I demand as my right to be represented by an MP that I have elected or have a say to his being my MP. No substitute is good enough. No part timers or part time MPs from other constituency to part time in my constituency. I demand a full fledge MP elected by my fellow constituents to represent me in Parliament and to take care of my problems. There is a direct quid pro quo in the case of a properly elected MP who promised to serve the people and the people duly elected him. Anything else is no good. It is a short change.

What do you think?